JanetM

I say yes. What I have seen is the definition of specified employee is same at key under 416(i). Pink sheet companies are publicly traded, just over the counter and not via the large exchangester.

Sounds like you left the spun off group in the old plan. You have a couple problems now. First mistake was not paying them out at the six month mark after their separation from service, when they were spun off. 2nd mistake is now they are going to get hit with the 20% additional tax plus interest since it was not paid for years as stated in OP. I think you need to find an ERISA counsel who can amend the original plan to exclude the spun off group, add new plan to cover those spun off and then go and fix failed distributions, and if you want to keep out of court, pay the interest and tax the participant is going to owe. Might be cheaper than the lawsuit settlements or the court costs and bad publicity.

Love, have to send to computer geek friend ...................... pi, pi, beautiful pi

And now you may have another error to contend with. While an employee of a member of the control group he was paid out of plan in that same control group. OPPS. You say he worked for one company 1998-2006. Quit, and then was hired by parent company in 2007. If he was paid out while an EE of parent you have a problem. Yes, his service with any member of the control group counts on vesting and service. Doesn't the employment application ask "have you ever been employed by ABC, LMN or XYZ, if yes when?" That alone could save you. Based on what you say, the ER is in error.

Andy, The only way I can see it working is if the amount of the tax benefit due to the large contributions out weights the cost of interest on he borrowed funds.

I'm confused too.

I haven't worked with these in a couple years, this was the last DOL guidance I knew of. http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/regs/fab_2006-2.html

jpod is right your are just asking to be sued. As to the statement that they don't quality for coverage, I am going to assume that when they first started working they worked the full time 30+ hours, then had a reduction in hours so they should have been deemed ineligible for the plan. The is qualifing event for COBRA. Now if the never worked over the 30+ hours and received benefits anyway, the ER erred. My advice is go the carrier and negotiate a way to keep these folks in the plan if you can. You may require the pay a bit more than the full timers, but in the economy and social setting we have today, you don't need this kind of bad press. You want to be tagged by the occupy (insert city name) as part of the greedy 1% who are out to destroy the world and enslave us working smucks?

Hi Chinky. Are you a pension geek like the rest of us?

Hmm, seems to me if she was rehired in Sept 2011, and two days later she received allocation of contribution, the plan sponsor has the fastest reporting to TPA that I have ever seen. If the contribution posted 2 days after rehire, most TPA don't know about the rehire until AFTER they complete a payroll period and get reported. Hancocks system would most likely have show her status as terminated/paid out. Not defending Hancock, but playing devil's advocate. If the senario was as written by OP then they would not have know she was rehired. Not going to touch the 180 rule to tax notice, they screwed up on that one.

QDRO that was too funny. The answer was a tounge twister like Peter Piper.

Since when do companies write severance plans that pay people who quit? You don't have deferral in severance plan. The plan states that when you get shown the door, you vest in the benefit. How and when it pays it is not an issue. What the plan says it how it works, the prior EE has not say in when or how the payments are made. This sounds more like a change in control plan for severance. With specific date of june 1 2012. Make me think the company is being sold and those most likely to be let go after the sale are being covered.

Please do as ERISA says. Don't make a mountain out of a mole hill. There is no penalty for making loan payments a few days late. If you insist on being picky, change all the future loan amortization schedules to monthly.

You can't change the beginning amounts. You will have to adjust the amounts based on the accurals. It is easier to switch from cash to accrual then back.

Pick me, Pick me..... He wanted to get paid to predict destruction and death.

K2, you got that right. The folks who take hardships don't always have the $$ skill to figure it out. I will caveat that - not all those who take hardships have lack of money skills, most were just dealt a bad deal.

alarm clock has snooze button???? I get up when the paper hits the driveway, unless I look at the time and see it is before 0500. LOL I am one of those who jump out of bed and hit the ground running...... straight to the kitchen for breakfast.

I toss in my two cents. The contributing employer, now defunct part of control group, would essentially have the remaining control group paying the tab. If the ER that took over the defunct business assets has no employees then there is nothing to figure in W/D calc. The sticky part is if others in the group are contributing members of the plan. If so you end up with the sins of the others to pay for.

No I don't agree. For example, a comany shuts down production for 10 to 45 days to retool, retro fit, or preventive maintenace. All employees subject to CBA are not getting contributions made for them. This is normal operating procedure for this employer and it happens at least once a year. This sort of normal operation shutdown is allowed and does not construe withdrawal.

IMHO the QDRO can't be deemed qualifed until it is filed with the court and clerk records it.

You should use the date the excess contribution was made. www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i5330.pdf

You didn't mention entertaining or construction so I ignored the special trades rules. I would guess a reasonable time to bargain new CBA. But the key is the union you are dealing with. What we might see as reasonable they see as not. I would suggest you call the folks at the plan and ask. With the exception of a few (sheet metal workers, central states) they are very open to working with you. Especially since in the OP you said the union folks all quit and you are hiring new folks who would be in the union.

Glad I could brighten your day Don. I will confess, I didn't make them up.

Not an ESOpP guru, but my first thought was that this was multiple employer plan not multiemployer plan.

See notice 97-45 http://benefitslink.com/IRS/notice97-45.html If I recall, the only negative could be if you have high turnover, then you will be including folks in the group have terminated employment, lowing the group average. I You will most likely have to amend the plan to allow for it. As for freely changing the method of determining HCEs, I don't think you should be changing back and forth too often. Have you considered a safe harbor formula to avoid the whole testing issue?