MoJo

I think the plan controls - and if the "safe harbor" criteria with the suspension language is applicable to all money sources, then the suspension would apply - *BUT* one does not need to do so for other than deferral sourced money. I've seen (and drafted) plans that provide different in-service distribution criteria for different money sources, including "hardship-like" withdrawals from non-deferral sources that aren't necessarily compliant with the "safe harbor" provisions (provided theya re nonetheless compliant with other in-service distribution rules).

Nothing is "Blocked" in the Webpage privacy policy. The error I get (essentially the "no new messages, broaden your criteria...) is at: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?a...&lastdate=0 I haven't upgraded to IE9 or (personally) changed security settings (although corporate IT may have done something - I;ll ask them when I get a chance). And you aren't imposing/taking advantage of me. On the contrary.... Thanks for Benefitslink.com

The above is the message I get - even if there are as yet unviewed messages. Previously, I could simply click the "View New Posts" link to get back to the new messages page and continue my browsing of the topics....

First, Dave, thanks for your attention to this (and to maintaining this board in the first place!). I appreciate it. Second, to give you some clarification.... Your "3600 seconds" description really isn't the case for me. When I open my browser and go to the message boards, teh "first time" I hit the "View New Posts" link in the upper right, it works, but if I read a message thread and then hit it again (within seconds, or maybe a minute or so) it doesn't work (and it used to). The only way I can get back to the "new messages" is to use my back button - and what I get is NOT a cached version of the page, but a refreshed version (i.e., there may actually be newer posts listed, that weren't there at first). Using the back function on my browser (IE9) isn't a problem unless I've posted a message myself in response to someone, and then I have to go back multiple pages (with a few errors from "flood control" and whatever) to get back to the new messages (as using the "View New Posts" link just returns an error. It also is irrelevant how long I've been away during the day - if I use "View New Posts" at anytime AFTER the initial, it won't work. Even closing my browser, logging off and back on (something I don't usually do), and various combinations of the former has no effect. I can't say for sure, but the few times I've been away from my desk and using my "personal" (non-corporate issued) computer with FIREFOX, and I have no problems at all. I haven't done it enough to know if it will continue to work, but it has worked the few times I've had the opportunity to try it. Again, just FYI, and thanks for an awesome place to get, and give, important information. Michael

Apparently that sunspot or earthquake occurred. It was working last Wednesday, but not today....

Oh boy. Can't help you with any articles, but this is ERISA fiduciary 101 - an employer is (almost) ALWAYS liable for the selection of ______________ (fill in the blank) and in this case, the blank can be filled in with "investments" or "vendor" or "advisor" or any number of others....

I agree - that's when it works best (related party transactions) - but I see no other way around your situation. The new loan is a new loan. I don't see how you could essentially characterize the new loan as a "continuation" of the old principle residence loan, when in fact you can't roll over the old loan to the new plan. In other words, why would anyone (i.e. the appropriate regulatory bodies, AND the new plan sponsor - who would have to approve the new loan as a "principle residence loan") believe that you can do it the way proposed, when you can't do it the right way? If the plan sponsor isn't willing to "accept" a rollover of the loan, why would they take the risk of putting the plan at risk by authorizing a loan to a new hire that purports to be a "principle residence loan" continuation (if there is such a thing) without it complying with the principle residence loan origination requirements?

The simple answer is it isn't the principle residence loan. It's a totally new loan from a new plan. What it is used to pay for is irrelevant, and unless it complies "anew" with the principle residence loan rules, it isn't. Why not roll the loan over to the new plan, and then continue paying on it?

*NOT*.... I can use the "view new posts" link once - and then I get an error. Using the back page "button" on my web browser (IE9) gets me back - and refreshes the topic list with new posts. Not a problem if I'm reading - but if I post something, then I have to "back page" repeatedly back to the new posts lists. Argh!

Just because the employee is no longer eligible to contribute to the plan doesn't mean they aren't still a participant in the plan, entitled to all of the rights & features thereof. So, yes, loan payment should/must still be made. Indeed, unless the plan otherwise restricts, they should also be able to take out new loans, or avail themselves of any other feature of being a participant in the plan.

Half of the people can be part right all of the time Some of the people can be all right part of the time But all of the people can’t be all right all of the time I think Abraham Lincoln said that - Robert Allen Zimmerman http://www.bobdylan.com/us/songs/talkin-world-war-iii-blues It's the 60/40 rule. 60% of the time I'm 40% correct. Or vice versa....

Unfortunately, not. It was working for me on Wednesday, then stoppped working (again) after the fix yesterday....

Got you beat. Just had one from 1979.... Owner died. I'm not sure but.... I think the bene's took a taxable distribution and may be holding their breaths for a while. VCP filing and penalties (if you could even calculate what they might be) would have exceeded the balance of the plan.

For several reasons: 1) the printing on the back of the stock may define the relationship between the company and the shareholder - but the shareholder is a trust under the control of an ERISA fiduciary - and not, doing most relevant time frames, the beneficiary; 2) when the beneficiary becomes a shareholder, they receive the benefits promised under the terms of the plan - as governed by ERISA and the Code - which, to the extent they conflict with the printing on the back of the stock certificate (to which they have neither assented to, nor been given consideration to accept) would preempt state "contract" law; and 3) the language says "current market value" which is as much a term of art as a precise defintion. Put three appraisers in a room, you'll get 4 appraisals - with one of them being "what do you want it to be?"

You have a divergence between the U.S. based Internal Revenue Code, and apparently Canadian labor law. In order to maintain the qualified status of the plan, comply with the Internal Revenue Code. In order not to go to jail (or suffer such other consequences as Canada may impose), comply with Canadian law. In other words, comply with both - and this is a classic reason why one should NEVER cover non-resident aliens in a U.S. based qualified retirement plan - UNLESS you can comply with each country's labor and revenue acts (which is rare).

I just recently got a QDIA notice from Vanguard using TDF's. I can email you a copy if you'd like. It's a 2 page with a chart for the various "years." Page one has a chart with the relative asset allocations (equities/bonds) for each year (and they label the sheet "Vanguard Target Retirement Funds / Balanced funds). Page two has a chart with return information.

If the company has a "negative net worth" (note - that may be different than having a negative book value, as assets may be worth more than they are carried on the "books" of the company), then it is insolvent, and essentially the stock is worthless. The question is, what is the appropriate measure of the worth of the company (and thence, it's shares of stock). Fair market value, based on an objective appraisal is ("probably" - because I'm a lawyer and never deal in aboslutes) a better measure than book value - but will cost some bucks to obtain.

One must be careful in the words they choose. I've worked with ERs who have said a plan is "terminating" and assets would move to a different plan when in fact it was a merger of one plan into the other. In a "technical" sense, one plan ceases to exist (independently) and many say it has "terminated." This thread points out the value of PLANNING and involving trusted advisors in doing so, to achieve the desired result.

"LIKE" many times over. I *will* use this (and probably often!)

The link usually works only once a day for me (first thing in the morning). What I do is open the window as a tab in ie9, read what I want, and use the back page arrow to go back,. It updates with new posts when I do that. Trying to hit the "View New Posts" link just gives me the error message.... Frustrating....

While "in theory" I agree with you (especially the part about it being a PIA), in practice, "ain't gonna happen." In the "small" market, usually the loan app is already in process (someone has a serious need) before the amendment is done, and the plan sponsor isn't going to stop the loan because of the fee disclosure regs.

Social Security still has a forwarding program - although I haven't used either the SSA or IRS in years (one never knows if they've been successful). I've used Intellius.com with some success and Berwyn seems to be a common choice as well.

If I'm not mistaken, the "changed" notice needs to go out in advance *unless* it isn't possible to do so, then it needs to go out within a reasonable period after. My *experience* has been the latter is more the norm rather than the former....

The validity of the document is not dependent on who received it or whether or not an SPD was prepared. If the document was validly completed and executed, it would be a valid plan document.

Yes, and no, with respect for the first part. Once contributions become plan assets, they must be "segregated" from corporate assets to avoid the PT. The easiest way to do that is to place them in trust, but - and my example of having a multiple-site trust may have been misleading - it isn't the only way, certainly, to do so. Of course, while you may avoid the PT concerns, the way in which you "segregate" the assets may give rise to other fiduciary concerns. i.e. You could place the contriibutions in escrow with your accountant/lawyer/broker/neighbor/etc. You avoid the PT, but you have fiduciary issues in handing plan assets over to one who by virtue of the control of plan assets has become a fiduciary, without necessarily being capable of fulfilling their responsibilities as such. A poor delegation, coupled by oversight, etc... I know that is splitting hairs, without a doubt, and 99.999999% of the time, assets either go into the "main" trust, or into a "separate" trust account of some kind (and that would virtually always be my recommendation), but the regs provide for the "separation" and not "deposit." So, that is a long winded (especially for a Friday afternoon) way of say, yep, I (practically) agree - but I gave a presentation to a bunch of lawyers for CLE credit this morning (I'm a (recovering) lawyer myself) on Prudent Fiduciary Practices in a Litigious Society, and I'm feeling feisty, argumentative, and am paying particular attention to detail (especially since some of those lawyers represent some of our (TPA) clients. Hanging with a bunch of lawyers will do that to you.... Have a good weekend.