JanetM

Under section 4203(a) of ERISA, a complete withdrawal from a multiemployer plan generally occurs when an employer permanently ceases to have an obligation to contribute under the plan or permanently ceases all covered operations under the plan. So if you replace all covered union employees with other union employees that you are required to make contributions for you do not have withdrawal.

Sounds to me like the investment company is more a custodian than an actual trustee.

The economy is so bad that: ... I got a pre-declined credit card in the mail. ... I ordered a burger at McDonalds and the kid behind the counter asked, "Can you afford fries with that?" ... CEO's are now playing miniature golf. ... If the bank returns your check marked "Insufficient Funds" you have to call them and ask if they meant you or them. ... Hot Wheels and Matchbox stocks are trading higher than GM. ... McDonald's is thinking of selling a new 1/4 ouncer. ... Parents in Beverly Hills have fired their nannies and actually learned their children's names. ... Motel Six won't leave the light on anymore. ... The Mafia is laying off judges. .. Blue Cross/Blue Shield laid off 25 Congressmen. And finally ...a truckload of Americans was caught sneaking into Mexico.

Just a couple thoughts. How large is the firm? How many have worked there and participated since the asset was lost? If the firm is small, with low turnover, you can estimate the assets allocation based on head count since payroll records are not available. (assume this was straight PS until late 80s or early 90s). Go back as far as you can with available records and see what you can reconstruct. IMHO if the lost asset is small percentage of current assets and info to fix isn't available just put into forfeiture account and use going forward. The key is not spend $100 to allocate $10. My experience with DOL and IRS is that a common sense method that is cost effective and does not discriminate in favor of HCE/Key/owner will be deemed okay.

I agree with Lou unless they applied for EIN for trust.

You should also consider setting a minimum loan amout, reasonable interest rate, and possible loan administration fee. What you don't want is the trouble and expense of someone borrowing $250 with 48 month repayment schedule.

I would agree that the amendment would be prospective only, and better if you do it for following plan year. That makes for a simpler audit. You would have to use the forfietures to pay any expense then allocate to participants at year end. Then next year use future forfeitures to reduce ER contributions. I think you would have to name which ER contributions are reduced, either match or profit sharing. Am not sure about safe harbor, but my gut says no.

I think David means you can either fire the guy or add inservice distribution option at age 64. Most PS plans allow inservice at age 65 anyway.

Depends on fact set. If all are large plans than you would reduce audit fees. You could get lower fund fees if you assets are large enough to exceed break points. If they are all are small and merging would make it large plan you would add audit fees and only reduce recordkeeping by small amount. I don't think the down market would have that much impact if the fund lineups are similar, you could simply map to new line up.

Then its kosher. As long as all participants have the option to select the investment you can do it. This means you have to allow new participants to select investments.

http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/retirement/arti...=175716,00.html

Your plan would not be compliant with the plan doc. You risk disqualification (ya I know a long shot). If the auditors find this the employer would be required to correct using their money - not additional deductions from ee's. Your best bet is to fix it quick and get on with life.

The plan actuary and whoever does the benefit calculations would also be ones to check with.

Q3 under involuntary term - page 6 n_09_27.pdf

If the 403b doesn't allow loans can't it make amendment to allow the rollover loans only? At least until they are paid off.

If the plan was amended to exclude IPT employees then you would not be considered an eligible participant if your status changed. You would no longer be able to defer or receive ER contributions (if any).

The deferral limit is for the individual. Since B used the max for 2008 then A will have to refund amounts that exceed ADP test %.

I would say yes. If the plan does not match CU then you have to forfeit any deferrals that are reclassed to CU. My question is are the amounts allowed to be CU? Does the plan use the 402g limit as the max or a % defined by plan as the max deferral before CU? Does the plan allow you to reclass to CU any amounts that fail the test. I know, it is the standard answer - What does the Plan allow?

My understanding is the feb 17 date only applies to 1099B (or issue the consolidated INT, DIV, B, OID etc.) If you check IRS site for each of the forms, the INT, DIV, R and others still have the 2/02/09 mailing due date.

If M permits partial withdrawal of just pre tax funds let then Ts can roll that to U. Then the Ts can leave AT and roth in M plan (if over the mandatory cashout). Issue is - does M allow picking souces or is the w/d prorated over all sources? If plan does prorated partial you are dead in the water. Now of course the Ts could roll the funds into traditional IRA and Roth. Then if U allows they can roll from traditional IRA to U plan.

DUI - TEXAS STYLE From a county where drunk driving is considered a sport, comes this true story Recently a routine police patrol parked outside a bar in Austin, Texas . After last call, the officer noticed a man leaving the bar so apparently intoxicated that he could barely walk. The man stumbled around the parking lot for a few minutes, with the officer quietly observing. After what seemed an eternity in which he tried his keys on five different vehicles, the man managed to find his car and fall into it. He sat there for a few minutes as a number of other patrons left the bar and drove off. Finally he started the car, switched the wipers on and off--they worked fine, dry summer night--, flicked the blinkers on and off a couple of times, honked the horn and then switched on the lights. He moved the vehicle forward a few inches, reversed a little and then remained still for a few more minutes as some more of the other patrons' vehicles left. At last, when he was the only car left in the parking lot, he pulled out and drove slowly down the road. The police officer, having waited patiently all this time, now started up his patrol car, put on the flashing lights, promptly pulled the man over and administered a breathalyzer test. To his amazement, the breathalyzer indicated no evidence that the man had consumed any alcohol at all! Dumbfounded, the officer said, I'll have to ask you to accompany me to the police station. This breathalyzer equipment must be broken.' 'I doubt it,' said the truly proud Redneck. 'Tonight I'm the designated decoy.'

I deleted the dupe posts. It sounds like U will let T folks roll part, if that is the case, it makes the arguement that the rollovers for T's are voluntary and not mandatory as in trust to trust transfer. If these are voluntary and T's can leave the funds in M plan, does M plan allow for partial distribution? Not sure about splitting like that for the loan. If this is definately what they plan to do, can you do trust to trust transfer of tax deferred sources and related loan balance to U plan then allow Ts new loan to pay off the AT and Roth loan in M plan so the participants can roll those funds to IRA?

I would use the first one based on the letter.

Steve is correct figure out a way to get the funds in the plan either with late amendment or disc. contribution. If you don't you will have more problems as this contribution is probably in the CBA and you don't need labor problems to boot.

OMG that made me laugh. Thanks!