Leaderboard

If "nowadays many people roll.... into a ROBS account", then many people are idiots. None of MY clients are doing that. I'm not going to definitively answer your question, because I'm willing to bet there are other problems with this "plan". Anyone who takes their qualified plan money and buys into these ROBS schemes deserves everything he gets for being an idiot (in almost all cases). It's not his fault that he's an idiot (since most of us are investment idiots), but his being taken advantage of without getting appropriate legal advice IS his fault. See the attached IRS memorandum on ROBS. Each one that the IRS investigates violates at least one and often many rules about QPs. So, IF there becomes a bankruptcy case, a smart lawyer for the creditor is going to investigate the ROBS and find the flaws and argue there is no protection because the plan is not a "good" plan in the first place. Your question actually anticipates that there is something about ROBS that is problemattic. The real question (that you didn't ask) is "is a 401k retirement plan protected or exempt from personal bankruptcy" and you should know the answer (generally, of course it's proteccted). The question you are really asking is whether a ROBS is a "good plan", and I wouldn't want to have to defend that client who adopted one; I want to be on the other side explaining to the judge all the problems with that plan and why it should not be given ERISA protection! Best of luck. Guidelines_regarding_rollover_as_business_start-ups.pdf

Refinancing involves replacing the original loan with a new loan - usually to get a new interest rate or add additional funds. Re-amortizing an existing loan without adding additional funds and at the loan's original interest rate in order to keep it in compliance does not, in my opinion, constitute refinancing.

One approach taken on behalf of creditors is to challenge the qualified status of a 401(k) plan. ROBS plans are vulnerable to such a challenge. I suspect the reason that there are "many" ROBS plans is that the IRS does not have the resources to challenge them, so it may appear that they stand.

We've done it (extended but not filed) and I don't recall any follow up. I would not - NOT - do anything proactively. Poke yourself in the eye if you want for similar results.

Perhaps overly conservative on my part, but since I have never had this come up if I were in your shoes I would check the 410(b) rules to make sure that the exclusion for union employees isn't ALL OR NOTHING, i.e, whether you lose the ability to ignore the union employees in your headcount if you in fact cover one of them. Of course I am not in your shoes and perhaps you already know that this is not a problem.