Leaderboard

If you don't want to spend too much on travel look up the ESOP Association. They have conferences that are large. But they also have local chapters that hold local conferences. For example in about a month there will be the Midwest Conference in KC. You can typically find a regional conference that won't cost too much in terms of travel unlike the national conferences which typically are in the DC or Las Vegas area. If you don't live near those cities that can be a pretty big cost to travel. Also, look up NCEO online. They publish a ton books. If you are willing to become a member they have a monthly webinar free to member. Depending on the time zone you are in you can eat lunch and watch the ones that interest you. As a side bonus they do the work to make these count for CE. I know it counts for CPA which I am. I THINK they count for legal CE. You can get a few hours of CE and learn for a cost of membership. Membership comes with book discounts and access to more of their online articles. The NCEO annual spring conference is always good to go to.

So the only "warranties" I've seen indicate that the platform options are "suitable" for retirement plans, but that the actual selection from those options, and their applicability to a specific plan, or a fiduciary function, and not covered under the warranty. For a service provider to be overly involved in that plan level selection process would essentially make them a fiduciary - and most absolutely deny fiduciary status, unless they have an investment arm, or provide (limited) 3(16) services (as we do). Otherwise, we are a "non-discretionary, directed, ministerial service provider."

😂

I know what you mean - as an allocation, owner might get 96%. As excess assets pro rata, she might get 98%. I am getting the suspicion there aren't "established guidelines," huh?

If there is a regional ESOP association, I would look into it. I have been to a couple of their meetings and they were very helpful with content. Good Luck.

No. The MEP would be a "successor plan" and since a successor plan exists, there is no distributable event from the existing plan. Easiest approach is to merge the existing plan into the MEP plan.

Of course and I don't have any issue with it. Just pointing out that FTW aren't sitting around for a month before going to the Treasury Dept.

That’s why we like citations.

Always beware that there are things that people in the “forefront”* of ESOPs know that ain’t so. *And in the backrooms of the ESOP Association.

Employee Stock Ownership Plan Answer Book. The authors, with experience (Ballard Spahr and Vedder Price) setting up ESOPs, organize this pleasantly trim book, with the information easy to find in Q&A format. Most law firms buy this treatise in internet format, but Wolters Kluwer publishes also the hardbound book. You might like the internet version, with hyperlinks to the cited ERISA and Internal Revenue Code sections, regulations, agency interpretations, and other sources. While you wouldn't want those details for your first read, the hyperlinking (and functions for lifting and pasting citations) is handy when you're working on a task for a client. https://law-store.wolterskluwer.com/s/product/employee-stock-ownership-plan-esop-answer-book-3-mo-subvitallaw-3r/01t0f00000J3FC0AAN

I’m not a 125 expert, but I don’t see how you wouldn’t have to aggregate. Otherwise you could have separate plans for HCEs and NHCEs or separate plans for each person in the extreme.

I've seen years many times. I actually worked as an investigator for the EBSA as my first job out of law school. Average case time was like nine months to a year. Many went to 18 or 24 months. If you want to chat more, please feel free to inbox me.

Probably not a CG. But remember, even though there is no family attribution from siblings, there could be, for example, certain options to purchase some or all of the other 21%, that would count as "ownership" for these purposes. Most CG determinations frankly don't seem to take into account such intricacies, which is why we always advise clients to seek legal/tax counsel before making the determination. Or at least do a deeper dive into the rules. P.S. I just read another post of yours where Cuse makes the exact same point with regard to options.

"Rocky VII: The new RMD regulations"

Years ago, we set up a DB plan for a pro boxer - with an NRA of 35.... The IRS puked all over that and insisted it was unreasonable - and demanded at least 50. We had no choice (nor appetite to sue) and went with 50. The problem with Peter's excellent analysis is that the prime earning years get diluted with lower earning in the "related" activities post boxing, and that requires an interesting formula to still provide desired benefits (not to mention funding gymnastics).

The predominant investment offering in plans is a menu of funds where each participant is choose the investments for their account. The fee disclosure rules are in the realm of the DOL in Labor Reg 2550.404a-5 and are applicable to plans that offer participant directed accounts. These rules do not apply to a pooled plan where the investment decisions are outside the control of the participant. One of the reasons allowing participants to choose their investments is the relief from some of the fiduciary responsibility for the choice of funds granted by the DOL regulations where plans make all of the disclosures about the various types of fees being paid from the plan. The most compelling reason to give to the plan sponsor of a plan that has a pooled plan account is the fiduciary responsibility associated with managing the trust fund, including the requirement of prudence. The plan fiduciary does not have the protections afforded by the DOL regs nor IRS 404(c). An extended period of poor investment performance relative to the markets could invite participants to challenge the handling of the investment of their accounts, including the expenses charged to the trust. Over the years, I have worked with several pooled plans where, frankly, the plans' investments demonstrably and significantly outperformed the markets. The plan fiduciaries were willing to accept their responsibilities, kept to a routine of due diligence and prudence, and some with the assistance of outside advisers, achieved excellent results for the participants. Your are correct - the decision is on them.

Potential DOL audit?

Potential plan disqualification.

operational failure in accordance with plan doc terms, potential failure of ADP/ACP, potential failure of TH test, and I hope a need to find another TPA

oooh, I'll start with the easy one: Failure to follow the plan's written terms. Hopefully that triggers the "we don't have to be your TPA anymore" clause in the service agreement!

You may be under the impression that your legal option must come down to the correct opinion, and that you may be sued for malpractice is you are incorrect. In my mediation cases I always make it a point to tell the client's that Mary's lawyer may have one opinion of the outcome of a particular dispute, and that John's lawyer may have a second and different option, and I may have yet a third and different opinion, and that at the end of the day the only opinion that counts is the opinion of the judge knows nothing about the area of law involved, and who hears the case after an expensive trial. I can find case law on every side of every issue. I can find you inconsistent statutes and regulations. The best I can do is say that if Mary is right then the outcome will be favorable to her, and that if John is right the outcome will be favorable to him, and that my opinion as a mediator doesn't count, and that Mary and John may just have to wait and see what the judge decides at the end of an expensive trial. Now the parties have to do a cost benefit analysis and decide if a compromise settlement might be a better option. BINGO. The old saying is the opinions are like a*******s, everybody has one. You opinions better be filled with lots of "but"s and "however"s and "on the other hand"s, and plenty of disclaimers, your know: "This opinion is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any uncertain issue." And, of course, don't offer an opinion about anything unless you are an expert and know your stuff.

Belgarath, a lot of opinions in the tax area just say that there is enough basis for the position that the taxpayer who takes the position would not be subject to penalties other than interest if challenged by the IRS and taxpayer loses. But the point here is that the client is willing to take their chances and just wants a back-up in case of an audit to try to avoid IRS penalties, opprobrium within company or profession, etc. It's legal CYA. 50% would be way above what is necessary for an opinion that the taxpayer can file the return and likely not be subject to penalties (there is never any certainty in life). My guess is it's largely the same in areas other than tax as well, e.g. is anyone going to give a 50+% opinion to an AI company that it can use a voice just like some famous person without permission and not be subject to damages? Probably not, but the AI company would want to be able to say that they had checked with their lawyers and been advised it might be OK before doing it. I'm pretty sure that outside a few areas like muni bonds and secured transactions, maybe some securities law provisions, opinions are rarely something where a law firm is effectively saying,"Yeah, go ahead and do X. We're sure you can and if we're wrong we're good for all of your damages." I've written some plan asset reg opinions (VCOC and REOC) where we were able to give nearly complete assurance on the legal issues, but that is the only area I have experience with where it's been near certainty. The rest were around 50% but really impossible to quantify. And that's another issue, i.e. although people do put percentages on tax opinion levels of certainty, it's ultimately more of a subjective art than a mathematical science.

A cynic might say that a legal opinion is simply a device for putting the lawyer’ malpractice insurance behind a proposed position or course of action that the client wants to take.