Bill Presson

I would think death would imply automatic resignation and no notice is required. Just documentation.

Can he not sell them to the owner of the RV park for $1?

As I mentioned, our notice has a "you're done 31 days after the notice" regardless of whether they sign. A provision like that should be in the trust agreement.

Read The F*^(&$# Document.

We consulted with the legal counsel on our document provider about this. They said the plan still needs to provide notice to A & B, otherwise how would they know they are no longer Trustees? It's a formality and we use a notice that asks them to sign an acknowledgment, but also says it's effective 31 days after the notice regardless.

If you can treat it as a required C3 restatement, there's no question. If it's just because the ER wants to do so, it's less clear. But if the ER makes the case that it's in the participants best interest, I would think so.

May not be required, but kind of a crappy move to not do it.

What Mike is driving at is that it depends. If the 10-15 employees at the main office are all NHCEs, then excluding everyone else isn't an issue. So, we can't assume things without the info and you shouldn't either.

Yikes. I've had plans that had to go back for audits, but we're always able (eventually) to get an opinion even with lots of caveats and disclaimers. Perhaps talking to a different audit firm would help? Perhaps one that exclusively does ERISA plan audits?

First, hire an ERISA attorney. Then decide the rest.

That's a good answer.

Just sent you a message before seeing this. I don't work in this area, so I don't have an answer.

Hopefully the account was set up correctly and the trustee has signature authority and not the participant.

So if Johnny starts a business with no employees and wants a retirement plan, he has to wait to satisfy whatever the service requirement is going to be going forward? Maybe I'm way out of it, but I've been doing this for 35+ years and that's way more conservative than I've ever known anyone to be. I just don't see it as an issue. Now, if the owner did this and then had employees who had to wait for 21/1 and then he wants to do another waiver to bring in a spouse or child? I would completely agree with you on the second waiver.

Funeral homes will provide very detailed expenses and want the money up front. I guess the "cushion" could be the increase for expected taxes.

Bird and Lou are correct. Make sure you use the the actual fair market value for the purchase and not just the cash value. The insurance company can provide that.

That design is quite common for a new employer. Obviously if the employer has been around long enough, it's not an issue. What would be your solution if not this?

Well, that seems to be a stupid answer to me.

Agree with Bird. I've told clients that I'll only stay involved if they get an ERISA attorney blessing on the transaction.

Surely the doc has a CPA, right? Most of them can handle this and that's where I would send them.

Not if you are requiring 2 years eligibility. ***edited to add that my brain wasn't registering the 401(k) part and this was a silly answer***

He can disclaim it, but he's not in control of who gets it. If there is no secondary beneficiary, then her estate determines the recipient.

Agree with BG, but all the dates you mentioned don't make sense to me.

If he's currently employed and satisfied the service requirements, I don't see how he's not eligible. But then he could be excluded by category.

Not any good ones that I can think of.