Leaderboard

Well, I'll just answer your initial question then and say no. OK, I'll add that it sounds like someone doesn't know what they are doing, and is treading on dangerous ground. We just dealt with a big-box provider that didn't know the difference between a termination and a merger.

Do what he said. For whatever year you filed with "final" indicated, amend it to show zero participants at the end of the year. Do not lose sleep.

Not exactly what you describe, but I have seen plan provisions and communications by which a terminating plan’s final distribution results in a default direct rollover to the next employer’s plan if the participant has not by a specified due date after a reasonable time delivered her instruction to be paid money or for a direct rollover to another eligible retirement plan.

Oh, seen it many times, they never listen, always warn them about the IRS audit issues but what do I know?

So, bringing it around to your initial question, the buyer cannot force rollovers from the terminated MPP into their existing plan. Payment method will be totally up to the participant subject to plan options and J&S Annuity rules for married participants.

You would think that, but it does happen. Some places run deferrals through payroll so they can get them to the record keeper electronically.

Remember the bonding requirements for non-qualifying assets.

Have you considered the addition of a Self-Directed Brokerage option. This option would still be subject to benefit, rights and feature but it would allow any "investment expert" to direct their funds to a brokerage account (under the plan) and invest as they pleased.

You describe an asset purchase. With an asset purchase the form of subsequent movement from the plan depends upon, as David noted, whether the purchaser adopted the seller's plan. If the purchaser did not adopt the sellers plan you have a situation where the employees of the seller have had a separation from service with the seller and have the same rights that any participant would have in that case. They cannot be forced to roll the money to the buyers plan. As separated participants they have the right to take lump sum distributions directly (no rollover) or to roll the funds somewhere else. If the buyer adopted the sellers plan you have a very different circumstance. Since the buyer maintains another qualified plan (I assume a 401(k) plan), that plan is now what is referred to as a successor plan. That leaves the buyer with several options 1) Operate the plan as is for the "grace period" provided for in the regulations, 2) freeze the plan, 3) terminate the plan, or 4) merge the plan into their existing plan (or a combination of #1 and #2). Since a successor plan exists, regulations do not allow distributions of qualified money (i.e. deferrals, QNECs, QMACs) for a period of 12 months from the plan originally sponsored by the seller. Sorry, I probably gave you more than you wanted but the bottom line is that there is no such thing as a forced rollover (except cash outs of balances below $5,000).

Hi just wondering what you mean 5500 Bingo. I need to amend a 2014 return because total number of participant at end of year was 1 instead of 0. I already have box 1 2 and 4 check now with amendment i need to check box 2.

Did buyer adopt the plan? Maybe it's neither a "mass rollover" nor a "transfer".

I agree with @Kevin C, it is a numbers game for those close(ish) to audit territory. The regulatory agencies are aware of this and Im cautiously optimistic that we will have a solution before we are actually required to bring the LTPT EEs into the plans. Other consideration: Possible impact on fees Extra administrative work (especially if plan responsibilities are simply added to an employees existing workload - includes everything from more paperwork for new employees, enrollment, notices, distributions, possible missing participants, etc.

Employers with a lot of short-term, low-wage, high-turnover positions where employees often do not work a full year, paired with auto-enrollment, could quickly lead to a lot of "missing" participants with small balances.

We have a few clients that will become large plans if they make everyone immediately eligible. Fees based on the participant count could be another concern.

Bill channeling his inner @Mike Preston 😀

I doubt a 2013 document would be a true volume submitter for an ESOP. It has only been with in the last 12 to 18 months I have seen those that are fully operational with all the needed approvals. Does it look like this is a full document? They might have been working on draft volume submitter as the IRS has been talking for a long time of getting ESOPs to that point. But in the end they just used that base to make it a custom document maybe????

Find yourself a lawyer well-versed in QDROs. NOT the financial guy. There are a lot of moving parts to a DRO regarding a pension plan.

Paul, haven't seen Larry on here in a while. Mike checks in pretty regularly. Also, I sent some info to JD earlier this week on this issue. I think y'all are good to go. WCP