ESOP Guy

Maybe some kind of business transition happened and it is easier to wipe the slate clean??????

I would suggest it might not require a PT for the trustee to act. Two examples I have seen and as far as I could ever tell (i was an observer not in all the meetings) even of 404c the trustee has an obligation to make sure the investment is suitable and so forth. I once belonged to a 401(k) plan that had self directed brokerage account. You couldn't buy the pink sheet stocks some kinds of thinly traded preferred stocks. As far as I could tell the trustee with the brokers help had decided these investments weren't suitable. I also once saw a small dentist practice that allowed all the employees to have a brokerage account so the dentist could. The CPA firm I worked for after reviewing all this as part of their investment advisory practice made changes. One of the changes they made was force one of the dentist's employees diversify. She had put 100% of her retirement funds in Ford stock. (odd thing was she made great money-- she had bought near the bottom in the 2008/2009 time frame. It didn't change the fact she had put all her eggs in one basket.) In that case I know the justification was even under 404c people felt the investments offered were not suitable. 404c isn't a blanket coverage the that says the trustee can't be called out. I know they have to look at the people's choices and decided the choices are in the universe of suitable choices. Can a case be made this partnership isn't a suitable choice? Just to be clear this part of retirement law isn't may strongest area of knowledge but the above is my first reaction to this question. I give the advice as something to look into more then saying I think I can win a legal case.

You need to better define "freeze". Depending on what (if any amendment) has been done it might qualify as a type of plan termination which would vest everyone. If the employer is merely not going to make any more contributions and require share distributions then it might be a few years before you have to vest everyone.

The due date of the SAR is extended with the Form 5500. So it is 2 months after the extended due date of the 5500 if it is extended.

I am sorry I just re-read the question. Are you saying they did it while the plan didn't allow it? That is to say there was an operational error? if so, you should check to make legal thinks this can be self-corrected vs needing a VCP filing.

Not really. While not common it isn't rare to see such a thing. Most of the issues tend to be discrimination rules-- you say some are allowed. Make sure the some aren't in effect all HCEs. That is a benefits, rights and features issue. Obviously, more distributions can mean the company needs to put up more cash for those payments. i am assuming this is a private company. A good liquidity study should help you quantify that issue. Make sure the plan document allows for it. That is plan 101 but it is stunning to see how often plans do things not in the plan. In effect this is nothing more then a type of an in-service distribution rule in an ESOP.

Thanks for the update.

I agree you get the same due date but I think the Form 5500 instructions in fact do answer your question. http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/pdf/2014-5500inst.pdf Section 2 says: For purposes of this return/report, the short plan year ends on the date of the change in accounting period or upon the complete distribution of assets of the plan. So I read that as saying 9/10/2014. It would seem like if the plan is audited that is when the auditor would date his report as there is nothing to audit beyond that date.

What happens if I join Company B tomorrow, wouldn't they have to count my service with my prior company since it hasn't been 5 years break in service? The answer to that question would be "it depends". There are a lot of factors that go into that one. Why the merger happened? If the company was purchased was it a stock purchase or an asset purchase? What does the new plan document say? I wouldn't worry about it until or if you go to work with the new company. If that happens I would raise your questions with the HR people and make sure they go to the experts (most likely an outside third party administration firm) to get the answer as the answer will depend on a number of factors. You can forfeit someone before the 5 years is up. It is just if you go back to work for the company (and does that company still exists?) before the 5 year break happens they would have to restore your account. That assumes you didn't take a distribution which sounds like you have not do that. So if you go to work for company B you might want to ask about being restored but I would not hold my breath on that one.

You mean you don't have your tax returns from 1999 and before? (fyi laughing with you not at you)

I has been a while since I have had a plan small enough to worry about TH issues but I believe if the Key gets a forfeiture allocation that counts. As Lou said if the rate of allocation for everyone is the lessor of 3% or the highest allocation still no problem. So if the forfeitures are allocated on compensation/total compensation it should be ok but don't lose track of those forfeitures-- if I recall correctly.

I am not sure what the attorney showed the IRS (I am the TPA) but in the cases I am talking about the penalties would have been several multiples of the cash on hand and even several years of total net profits. One of them was a 409(p) failure in an ESOP. There is a reason people joke about 409(p) failures being a nuclear bomb of failures. The penalties will easily exceed 100% of the value of the ESOP and in this case the ESOP owned 100% of the company stock. So the fines would have been over 100% of the total FMV of the company. I understand why they have the 409(p) rules. I don't understand the penalties for a failure. No one in their right mind is ever going to make you pay the actual fines. The IRS is going to always settle for less in a VCP. They were pretty extreme cases and it was obvious.

I have only worked with a few John Doe VCP filings but they all happened because if you fixed the problem by the letter of the correction methods it would have bankrupted the company. Or put another way the IRS really had two choices from my perspective 1) Say we are going to insist the company go bankrupt-- to which since it was a John Doe filing the company simply would have taken its chance in the audit lottery. What did it have to lose? If they get caught they go bankrupt the same result as the VCP or they don't get audited and they live or 2) The IRS settle for something that hurts but leave the company intact. The end result has always been the same. The IRS agreed to something that didn't put the company out of business. As far as I can tell a lawyer doesn't charge that much more for a John Doe fling over a regular VCP filing. That is the route I would try if the problem is that big.

The only other thing I can think of is to replace the town house with cash equal to the appraised value (assuming he has cash available to do that) and have the deed transferred out of the plan's name to his name. Not an expert on this topic but I THINK you can't do that. That seems like that would be the plan selling an asset in a way that would create a PT.

I think it is one thing for the money to end up in an IRA because the person rolls it all or more common the person take some kind of in-service distribution and then terminate and it so happens to be the year they are 70.5. It is another thing to make the plan be send 100% of the money to the IRA and let the IRA worry about the RMD. That is a plan risking disqualification on the actions of the IRA company. I agree a mistake will most likely not end up being fatal. A bad plan that seems to purposefully ignore the rules strikes me as playing with fire needlessly.

I don't think sending the funds to the rollover institution is even allowed. If you read the regulations on this the 1st dollars distributed from the plan in the year an RMD is due is the RMD. Those dollars are (edit) not (edit) allowed to be rolled over.

Actually the whole RMD thing is a great example of taking a sledge hammer to a problem that needs tweezers. I get it you don't want people who have large balances to keep it in tax deferred accounts for various reasons. What we got is one of the most complex set of rules in the whole field. Just look at how often there are questions about these rules. Then after all that in the 20+ years I have done this I can't tell you how many <$100 RMD checks I have helped get issued. And I won't even talk very much about the number <$1 RMD checks I have seen. Compared to the RMD checks from say accounts with >$100,000 the numbers are a joke. So much time, effort and cost to solve a problem that happens not very often. They could repeal the law and I am convinced they wouldn't see much change in total tax revenue from the money kept in the plans.

To freeze a plan takes an amendment so I think the employees will be notified of the plan being frozen when they get the SMM. Yes, if the plan is frozen (an odd term for any DC plan as frozen would seem to mean no more contributions will be given and maybe no one new will be allowed to enter the plan) there is no distributable event so I think all employees who are active have to leave their funds in the plan unless it allows for in-service distributions which is kind of rare in an ESOP. I do think you need to think about if this is the type of event that requires you to vest everyone to 100%. If not, and you aren't allowing new people to enter the plan then you could have coverage testing issues as you would have to track people who count for the test and aren't allowed in the plan when you reallocate forfeitures. Making everyone 100% vested obviously means no forfeitures. It is these kinds of issues that I hope you are going to run this by an ERISA lawyer before you implement this idea.

The second payment need not be made until the end of the next payment interval even if that payment interval ends in the next calendar year." I believe the end of the next payment interval is the the same year as the 4/1 payment. I just don't see that sentence as saying the 12/31 of the year following the 4/1 payment.

I believe it is 3 also.

I have not seen anyone get a D Letter for a plan freeze.

Most plan attorneys I know say the same thing. Just set up a new plan. You don't have to worry about hidden and unknown disqualifying defects.

I am not a huge expert on fiduciary issues but does a lack of knowledge beyond its assigned function matter? Back a few years ago there was a strong movement to make appraisers of ESOP stock fiduciaries. One of the strongest objections to this idea was once you make them fiduciaries you make them liable for acts they would not have no control or knowledge about. I got the impression that when it comes to ERISA plans one fiduciary is liable for the acts of all the other fiduciaries of the plan. I remember several lawyers giving the example the appraiser if they were the last deep pocket to go after could get entangled in disputes say over how distributions were handled, or the cash in the ESOP invested. These would be things a stock appraiser would have no control over or even knowledge about in an ESOP. This was enough of a threat that several appraisal firms made it clear if the new rules came into existence they thought they would have no choice but leave the ESOP market and focus solely on Estate tax appraisals and the buy/sell of privately held company market. They believed they could not be compensated enough to take on that kind of risk. I am willing to be told I misunderstood these conversations but I don't think I did.

Sounds like my bosses need to raise our fees. We never charge more then $100 to $150 it seems like to review a QDRO. We view it as a money loser in terms of time vs revenue. We will charge more if we go back and forth a few times with the attorney. We don't have a standard QDRO format so we get what we get from the attorney and we review it. It seems like most of the time if there is a flaw it is we can't compute the benefit the Alt Payee is supposed to get. Every now and then you find one with a flaw like no plan name or wrong plan name. But the biggest flaw is failing to describe how to split the benefit in a way that is actionable.

Actually he wouldn't escape taxation. He would get a 1099-R from the source IRA for the amount of the distribution and a 1099-R from the source qualified plan. He would only be able to show one rollover so one would not be taxed and one would not be taxed. What he might be trying to do is get in effect 120 days by then saying I put in money for the qualified plan distribution 60 days after that distribution. I have never looked up if that is possible or not but given the IRS' new found dislike of people using a series of IRA withdrawals in effect keep a series of tax free and interest free loans going I have my doubts. So as to the original question I am with Lou S. I think the answer is "no" it won't work maybe for just a little different reason as to why.