Leaderboard

I think you are missing the points being made here. Everyone here is in agreement that backdating should not take place and should never even have been suggested. What has been pointed out over and over again is that it NOT against "pension law" to to make the plan safe harbor now, nor will it make the plan non-compliant. If your current provider claims it cannot be done, it is either because They don't know what they are doing (not very likely) Their internal operations can't handle it because it is outside of their cookie cutter model. (most likely) I know one big national firm that require January 1 changes to be submitted early November. Not because that is what the law requires, but is the time they need in order for their "amendment teams" to get it done on time. Most folks on this board can get it done, LEGALLY, in one day.

I am new to working for multiemployer pension funds. I see a number of these plans are money purchase plans and they have a concept of deemed termination of employment, in which no contributing employer makes a contribution for an employee (for say, 6 or 12 months), then the employee is deemed to have terminated his/her employment and is entitled to commence distribution of his/her account balance. In the context of a money purchase plan, the IRS treats them as a pension plan and they require that the employee have a severance from employment. Thus, as applied to those types of provisions, the plan risks disqualification because there is no determination of whether the participant must have an actual severance from employment. Is the IRS view on these deemed termination of employment provisions less restrictive in the collective bargaining context or should the deemed termination of employment provision in a money purchase plan be read as also requiring an actual severance from employment? Does anyone have any legal authority to cite either way for such a proposition?

I think your question about whether there is a distributable event is addressed in the definition of a severance from employment - see Code section 401(k)(2)(B)(i)(1). This discussion is from IRS Notice 2002-4: Under Code § 401(k)(2)(B)(i)(I), as amended by § 646 of EGTRRA, amounts attributable to elective contributions may be distributed upon the employee’s severance from employment with the employer maintaining the plan. For this purpose, the employer includes all corporations and other entities treated as the same employer under Code § 414(b), (c), (m), or (o). An employee does not have a severance from employment if, in connection with a change of employment, the employee’s new employer maintains the section 401(k) plan with respect to the employee (for example, by assuming sponsorship of the plan or by accepting a transfer of plan assets and liabilities (within the meaning of Code § 414(l)) with respect to the employee). Thus, for example, if all employees of a controlled group of corporations (within the meaning of § 414(b)) are covered by a section 401(k) plan and a transaction occurs such that one subsidiary corporation in the group is no longer aggregated with other members in the group under § 414(b), (c), (m), or (o), and in connection with the transaction no assets are transferred from the section 401(k) plan to a plan maintained by the former subsidiary corporation, then, participants in the section 401(k) plan who continue employment with the subsidiary corporation will have a severance from employment with the employer maintaining the section 401(k) plan and may receive a distribution of amounts attributable to elective contributions from that plan. However, if the subsidiary corporation maintained a section 401(k) plan for its employees before the transaction and continues to maintain the section 401(k) plan following the transaction, the employees who continue employment with the subsidiary do not have a severance from employment with the employer maintaining the plan. As you stated, the Plan document doesn't mandate that there be a spin-off/transfer of assets to a new plan maintained by the employer leaving the controlled group. However, the Plan document includes the severance from employment definition. If the employers agree on a spin-off/transfer, then it is not a distributable event when the subsidiary (?) leaves the controlled group. Otherwise it is.

401(a)(31) is a qualification requirement. While not exactly on point, 1.401(a)(31)-1 A-6(b) notes that "A plan will fail to satisfy section 401(a)(31) if the plan administrator prescribes any unreasonable procedure" for electing a direct rollover. Requiring participants to return their forms in less than 30 days could be considered an unreasonable procedure. What does the plan administrator intend to do with the benefits of participants who do not return a distribution form? Roll them over to an IRA provider (e.g. Penchecks)? Consider this scenario: the employer sends out the 402(f) notice on December 16. No response is received and the account is rolled over to Penchecks on December 30. On January 3 the participant returns a completed distribution form electing a direct rollover to another qualified plan. The plan will have failed to failed to comply with 401(a)(31) by not providing a direct rollover to the plan specified by the participant.

Jim Gaffigan is funny, your post, no.

Not at all.

You might have done this... I have had more success than one would think searching for an obit online. It not only often times names the family but the church the service will be held at. We have called the church and the pastor knows how to contact someone in the family and does it for us.