Leaderboard

Links to both final and proposed regs available here.

In addition to Peter's helpful sources and reasoning, I'll point you to IRC 413(c), which lists several purposes for which the employers sponsoring a multiple-employer plan are considered to be a single employer, including: 410(a), regarding service required to participate in the plan 411, regarding service required to become vested in the plan 401(a), but only as it regards whether the plan is for the exclusive benefit of the employees of the employer and their beneficiaries Congress could have added section 401(a)(9) to this list, but they did not. Which implies that the employers maintaining a multiple-employer plan are treated as separate employers for purposes of 401(a)(9).

The plan document outlines the definition of compensation. I would hope that definition would be identical between the two plans.

If you want to save some trees, wait until tomorrow to print them out. At that time, they will be published in the Feferal Register in three-cplumn format.

Just to be clear for anyone reading who hasn't encountered this - in this case there is nothing to actually move. The money gets recoded as a different type. Sometimes folks think investments will actually be liquidated and reinvested, and that is not the case if clear instructions are given and the recordkeeper (Hancock) does it correctly.