K2retire

If the participant can't or won't restore it, the plan sponsor must restore it. Typically, I believe, it would be returned to an unallocated account rather than becoming a windfall for the participant.

Luke, one example that I heard is even more absurd -- the independent business of a couple who were never married with a minor child are also a controlled group. My point was that these rules were intended to make it difficult for clever people to find a way to exclude employees from the plan based on convoluted ownership of multiple businesses. Historically, I suspect you would find that one of the ways that was done was by setting up two companies, one owned by the husband and the other by the wife. The business owners were paid from one company and the employees from the other. So rules were established, and as is often the case, they went too far the other direction.

When you consider that the purpose of the CG/ASG rules is to keep people from excluding employees by setting up a separate company owned by related parties that employs the staff, it seems like that this was the exact intent.

I'm sure there are many -- but the bottom line is that he wants it for free!

I am a TPA working at a financial services firm. I do not work on any non qualified plans. My boss seems to think that I should be able to provide him with a sample of boilerplate language for a COLI plan. In the qualified plan area, I can't imagine anyone being willing to share that for free. Is it something that might be available for a non qualified plan?

When have IRS rules ever had anything to do with the concept of fairness?

I'm no expert, but I believe that the lease to a party in interest is the PT.

As a non-ERPA, I wonder how you could miss the most important duty!

Tom's example might not exactly match the document you have -- it depends on whose software created the plan documents. But all of them should have something similar.

They could explain to the MEP that as a fiduciary they are not willing to join the plan without that information. If they still won't provide it, they should look elsewhere.

I believe the employer pays for it, but I'll ask.

You raise good questions. As I understand it, they intend to merely require them to enroll and hope for the best.

A client has recently asked if they can require participants to enroll in their financial wellness program as a condition of receiving a hardship distribution from their retirement plan. It seems like a great idea to me, but I have no idea if it is allowed.

We use the pay date. We have a DOL audit of one of our plans require that, so we just stuck with it.

Record keepers like to do it that way so that the employer has a record of the distribution being made. They can take a copy of the check and keep it in the employees' file in case there is ever a question of whether or not they received a distribution from the plan.

Unless the profit sharing contributions require 1000 hours and/or last day employment as is relatively common.

What type of plan is it?

Or as my grandmother used to say "People in h*!! want ice water, too!"

We have a QACA plan for a controlled group. One of the participating employers would like to spin off into a different plan in the middle of the plan year. The controlled group status is not changing. They have assured us that the new plan will have identical provisions. (Although I'm skeptical that they won't add something.) The receiving plan is part of a MEP. Notice 2016-16, III D 2 is very clear that you can't do a mid-year amendment that reduces the number or group of eligible employees. Our plan would obviously be reducing the group of eligible employees. However, because those employees are continuing to be eligible in a plan sponsored by the same employer with identical provisions, a co-worker believes it would be OK to do. Is that correct? Regardless of timing, we plan to write the amendment to transfer the balances of the impacted employees to the new plan at the time of the spin off. Going forward, if they have employees who move between companies, I don't believe those employees will have a distributable event in the plan they are leaving. Is there a way to write something into the spin-off amendment to allow the balances to move between plans for transferring employees? Do we have a benefits rights and features issue due to different investment line ups?

It's an impossible battle! But it's worse when a co-worker, who should know better, does it.

Amend the plan to allow in service after age 70 1/2: problem solved!

Over a decade ago I attended a DOL Speaks conference at which the speaker indicated that they do pursue plans that indicate no bond on their 5500. I spoke to her after the presentation and pointed out that I had seen thousands of them filed and never encountered any follow up. She was incredulous!

I thought A would become eligible to defer on either the date he completed 1000 hours in the year or on the first day of year 2.

I agree it would be an easy VCP filing -- if we can get them to pay the filing and drafting fees.

We provide a corporate resolution listing the total contribution referencing the contribution report for the breakdown.