Leaderboard

The seller could consider a spinoff. This most likely makes sense if the buyer wants to merge the spinoff into its own plan. There are pros and cons with this (or any other) process. (I won't list all the pros and cons here; that's a consulting project for which I would not get paid. In the meantime, you can give yourself some more background by searching these Message Boards; try a search word like "merge" or "spinoff".) In addition, there are other employment-related issues associated with any buy/sell arrangement, and those should be discussed in advance. The buyer and seller should (separately) engage competent ERISA counsel, preferably with M&A experience.

Yes, they have. It hasn't happened a lot but we have had clients get caught in this. We no longer recommend they do this but file late and DFVCP file. The fines under that program are so small compared to if the 5500 gets declared late. We will do the file and amend later but they have to give us written direction so we can raise that as a defense if they get hit and come looking to collect from our firm.

Did they get a 45 day letter from the DOL and not fix it in time? Same. I recommend DFVCP, but even auditors want us to go the amendment route. If Im going to do it, it is with written direction from the client.

Hi Khn: Corporate transaction agreements generally contain provisions dealing with the treatment of employee benefits plans. I would first look at the reps and warranties dealing with employee benefits in the transaction agreement to determine if the parties have already decided on what actions they wish to take with respect to the seller's 401(k) plan. In general, post-transaction, the employees of the seller are deemed to have "terminated" from the controlled group that sponsored the 401(k) plan. This results in a distribution event under the 401(k) plan. Those participants may receive their account balances in any form that is otherwise available to them under the plan, as if they had terminated employment. The important point here is that the parties cannot require the participant to roll over their account balance to the buyer's 401(k) plan. On the other hand, the parties could decide in the corporate transaction agreement to "spin-off" the account balances of those employees of the selling company that is to be acquired, and have those spun-off assets merged into the buying company's 401(k) plan. In such event, the participant's are not really given a choice--their account balances are now part of the buyer's 401(k) plan (i.e., no distribution event). Hope this helps.,

Completely agree. " notice must accurately describe the type and amount of compensation that may be deferred" Key word is "describe".

I disagree. The question to your quoted answer is must the notice describe the limit on contributions. You have to describe the limit, which is a combined limit based on the length of time each plan existed. The answer must be read in the context of the question. We describe the limit combined limit for those who are not catch-up eligible, those who are catch-up eligible, and those who are super catch-up eligible. We also include the statement that contributions made to the SIMPLE count towards the combined limit and reduce what can be contributed in the SH plan.

Ms Jenny, my only free advice is to arrange to sell the property to an unrelated individual as soon as possible. You’re 78 and your long term investing days are over.

Suppose all the plans have the same provisions and same investment options. You are fine to aggregate them for testing. The solo plans are a non-public EZ filer, which may be the goal here. If so, go for it. Charge appropriately, of course.

Not exactly the answer you are looking for as we use one of the large paying agents. But our policy on ACHs is simple. You can only get one if you make an online election and input the numbers yourself. It is on you to get it right. If something goes wrong we will help obviously but we take no responsibility nor liability for the numbers a participant inputs for payment. Anything else is a risk management is unwilling to take.

You have it correct for the example you gave. And yes I have seen people not get the 2nd YOS by leaving the job a day or two before an anniversary. The real trick with elapsed time is making sure you don't lose track of the Service Spanning Rule. Using your example above if that person was rehired on 10/20/2025 they would get the 2 YOS the day they are rehired and their 3rd on 4/5/2026. That gap is ignored because of the Service Spanning Rule.

You need way more help than you can get from this board for free. There are people on this board who are qualified to help you but it won't be cheap. Your problem is fraught with all kinds of legal issues. I know that isn't answer you wanted but it really is the best answers. Unfortunately, the people who helped you in the past didn't warn you about issues like this long ago. You can literally search real estate in plans on this board and you will find threat after thread of people having this and other problems of putting this kind of asset class in a plan like this. I feel for your problem but it won't be cheap nor easy to get a fix.