MoJo

Who is the trustee? They will have to be able to 1) hold the stock; and, 2) effectuate the transactions. I've been involved in situations like this before, but with an "institutional" trustee (usually bundled arrangements) that have the capability to handle this. Who are the plan fiduciaries? First, they should have their heads examined. While it is a settlor function to decide to add company stock to a plan, it is a fiduciary function to determine whether to hold it, and if and when to sell it.

Just a comment (can't see a better place) about the new design - it works, and that's good, but now I have to scroll continuously to see threads with new activity. I really don't need more than "one line" per thread. I used to get a lot more on my "desktop real estate" and now, I get maybe a third as much. Just my two cents worth....

If it's only a matter of their not signing the Plan (but they do sign the "approved" trust) then it's a non-issue. We've seen several trustees who have no problems with the trust provisions, but do not want to have any responsibility relative to the plan terms (which they think if they sign to they are acknowleging/warrantying/guaranteeing the provsiions of). We've also been successful in getting some (like Great West) to actually use the FT Williams "pre-approved" trust with very minor modification, alleviating the problem K2 points out.

Thanks Tom. Now if you'd just read the 176 pages and report on any (significant) changes, that would truly make *my* New Year better...

What is the question? In general, you shouldn't "convert" any dc into a db or dc into db. Always better to terminate and start fresh. P.S. I believe 411(d)(6) has been around since ERISA was passed. I'm not sure it's *always* better to terminate and start fresh. Many, many more factors must be considered before that determination is made. I *always* start from the premise that "preservation" of benefits (convert, merge, etc.) is better, *unless* there is a good reason not to. Just my 2 cents worth. Beyond that, yup: What's the question?

Berwin or intellius.com are reasonably priced search services that may not need the SS# (although it helps). Check with Inspira about a rollover (and they also do searches). Not sure about the cost.

The EOB seems to think it's okay to do that. But be careful of stuff like that happening only to HCEs. (Chapter 4, section IV, Part F2, 2(f)) Thanks BG, I appreciate it!

I have the same question. In my case, however, an employer/plan sponsor wants to give vesting service credit to individuals who jump from a competitor to them. Interesting recruiting tool.....

First, I believe a distribution has to be made - it is a qualification issue. Second, "fiduciarily prudent" steps need to occur to locate the beneficiary. There are service that quite reasonably will do that for you. Third, if the bene is found but the "custodian" is not the "guardian" the plan can petition the probate court in the jurisdiction to appoint one (and I would think this is a "prudent" step to do, subject only to the amount of money involved). Essentially, once the court is involved, the kid would become a ward of the court and a guardian of both the person (the "kid") and the estate (the "money") would have to be appointed (and it may be the same person for both roles). What about a rollover to an IRA in the name of the bene? Inspira (located in Pittsburgh) does this all the time, and does the search as well.

My position is that the plan document language should be precise - and consistent with what you call the "technical perspective". Using language that clearly spells out what "lump sum" means (be it a "single" lump sum, or a distribution of the entire account balance within one year) - it had better be clear. the worst situation would be one where the plan document wasn't clear, and a participant violated the "technical" perspective after having been told via participant communications of the tax treatment of a "lump sum" (even though it didn't specify a single, or all within a year). That's a lawsuit waiting to happen....

Under DOL guidance issued earlier this year, if the entities aren't sufficiently related, what you have for DOL (and hence for Form 5500) purposes are SEPARATE PLANS requiring SEPARATE FORMS 5500 - albeit having been implemented using a single plan document. What exactly do you mean by "unrelated"?

The MLB plan is a "multi-employer" plan - not a "multiple employer" plan.

IMHO, the answer to your question should have been addressed in the amendment that made the change to the eligibility requirements - and there could have been a "one time" entry date of 12/1/12 - if that is what the sponsor wanted, or a clear indication that the affected employees would enter as of the next "regular" entry date. Absent that, and absent anything in the plan to the contrary, I would say that the affected employees have met their eligibility requirements on 12/1/12, and would enter the plan on the next entry date (1/1/13).

And it is precisely for these reasons that I always specifiy a "single lump sum distribution." Try as hard as I might to stifle it, occassionally the lawyer in me surfaces to be extra cautious. Bottom line, absent context (and relying on context is always a bad idea), "lump sum" means nothing more than one payment, but doesn't necessarily mean the entire account balance - regardless of what the IRS says (and in my mind, the plan doc trumps the IRS in this case, and since it is a "document interpretation issue" and not necessarily (although it may impact) a qualification issue, their opinion is irrelevant except that a "single lump sum" has some tax or qualification consequence). There are some tax issues (and possibly qualification issues - although I haven't looked it up) that require an entire account balance to be depleted within a single "year" (plan or tax), and the IRS may use the short hand nomenclature of "lump sum" - but arguably, 12 monthly payments that deplete an account would be UNDER THEIR DEFINITION a "lump sum" but not under anyone elses.....

I would suggest that this validates my prior opinion. If a "lump sum" means an entire account balance, then why would one need the modifier "one." It certainly implies that there may be more than "one" lump sum payment available, otherwise the word "one" is superfluous. With that, may I have a hamburger today for which I will gladly pay you next Tuesday? (and if you understand that, you are of a certain age and spent way too much time in front of a television on Saturday mornings).

To accomplish what you are suggesting, I would simply structure it as a "spin off" of a portion of the MEP plan to the single employer. Nothing changes, except to the extent the employer chooses.

Good question! Many (if not most) might say "nothing." I define "lump sum" to mean a non-periodic amount of all or a portion of the account. A single sum is a "single lump sum" - and that is the language I use in plan documents to avoid inadvertently authorizing partial lump sum distributions.

Tell him to look behind the filing cabinet - and give him a sample of what it would look like. I've heard that's where most clients find those types of documents....

There are no "market makers" for pink sheet traded securities, as there are for securities "listed" on an exchange. Market makers MUST buy or sell in order to create a market which creates liquidity. Without market makers, a pink sheet security holder / seller must wait (sometimes for years) until a buyer emerges to consumate a trade.

Tis the season, isn't it. My "distribution manager" just was in my office asking the exact same thing (although apparently, we have more than one). It's a qualification requirement. It's a plan requirement. Getting consent, in my humble opinion, is a pro forma requirement to allow for tax withholding elections - BUT NOT TO ELECT TO, OR NOT TO, TAKE THE DISTRIBUTION. Our policy is to process the distribution, marking the paperwork "RMD - FORCE OUT" and cut the check. If it doesn't get cashed, well, then that's another matter - but at least the distribution is processed....

Yea. The outfit in your pic is rather fitting, considering..... You're a mean one, Mr. Poje....

Tom.... STOPIT! I need to get work down....

I agree with David - plus I would add that the State has an interest in having the estate re-opened to include "recently discovered" assets - there may be estate tax consequences, and there most certainly are income tax consequences.

There are also reasons why they should do it. Experience tells us that a large percentage of distributions will be *spent* and not rolled-over into any IRA (or new employer's plan). That results in a loss of retirement readyness for those employees,a nd a potential burden on the new employer (people just won't retire when they are supposed to). Yes, there may be problems with Company A's plan - but any good attorney/consultant/provider can assist with due dilligence, and 1) identify the risks; 2) fix them, or plan for the fix; and 3) provide protection for the buyer (and their plan0 should something surface. My "advice" has always been to "plan for the spin-off/merger" and only not do so if an truly unresolveable problem arises. Just my position. Many, many others would disagree - to the detriment of the employees, and ultimately the new employer....

I know of no restrictions on investments, save for the "subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. courts" - which pink sheet securities are; not prohibited by the prohibited transaction rules - which pink sheet securities aren't (generally); and are "prudent" - which is a fiduciary call....