J2D2

rcline, I agree that the end result in this scenario is not changed. However, I disagree with how you get to that result. My understanding is that the collective bargaining agreement creates the plan, as well as the joint board of admin/trustees (of the plan, not the union), and that the joint board is considered to be the plan sponsor. In most, if not all, situations, the joint board is also the plan administrator for ERISA purposes (not unlike the situation where a corporation sponsors a plan and is also designated as the plan administrator).

Isn't the joint board of administration/trustees considered to be the sponsor of a multiemployer plan?

Aren't owners barred from participating in multiemployer plans?

A sad, but true, commentary on a once proud franchise. Wonder how many of those jerseys we'll see this season?

Jim, A big concern of mine in this type of situation is whether the employer's inability to find the document reflects a general lack of interest in fulfiling its duties as a plan sponsor. You may be able to get a feel for this as you go through your due diligence, but this is one of those red flags that makes me nervous. If you go forward, make sure that there is a clear understanding, preferably in writing, of what is involved in the operation and administration of the plan and who is doing what to whom.

"Mbozek, have you had an opportunity to read ERISA Opinion Letter 89-30A, which states "Consistent with the principles discussed in the supplementary information accompanying the Federal Register publication of §2550.408b-1, a loan program which excludes all but active employees from participation would not be considered to be providing loans on a reasonably equivalent basis to all participants and beneficiaries who are parties in interest."?" Reviving this topic to see if anyone has more experience with this issue over the ensuing 5 years. Specifically, I'd be interested to know if DOL has, on audit or otherwise, challenged a plan provision that restricted loans to active employees. Thanks.

Participant has requested a hardship withdrawal for tuition and room & board. OK with tuition, but the room & board request is for an off-campus apartment. So far, I've not found anything that discusses whether room & board is restricted to campus housing. I can see one rationale for such a restriction - these expenses are charged up-front and are known in advance. On the other hand, apartment rent is also set up-front; but who knows how much a college student will eat over the next academic year. Has anyone had to address this question?

40 on the first go-round. They even had my alma mater - BG!

I've tried to attach an admittedly incomplete list that I've used from time-to-time. As you'll see, it has not been updated for the last couple of years. It's imperfect, but may be a start for you. Alpha_Soup_of_EB.xls

For the last couple of days, I have had to logon each time I visited the message boards. I haven't logged off or deleted cookies in between visits. I don't know if the issue is with my computer/network or with BenefitsLink. Has anyone else had similar issues?

And, of course, the 1 person in the db plan is not going to use the house. [Nudge, nudge; wink-wink]

I could be wrong, but I don’t think it can be returned to the plan. Even though the check was not cashed, don’t you have constructive receipt occurring? I'd say you have actual, not constructive, receipt.

Huh????

"J2D2: Why form a MEWA? They have such bad PR. And, it would probably have to meet similar requirements to a commercial insurer. Why bother? Don Levit" Guess my attempt at humor missed the mark. I was merely making an observation that, when Don starts posting, MEWAs seem to work their way into the mix.

"I wonder, though, if Ric could share some of his expertise on how to deal with large premium increases?" Form a MEWA?

Thanks for the link, but I'm more interested in hearing whether trust depts. are receiving inquiries about FAS 157. If so, how are they responding?

We (bank trustee/custodian) have recently been asked to certify that our statements comply with FAS 157 or that we intend to comply with FAS 157. Are any other bank trustees or custodians out there getting similar requests?

What about switching to one of the approved equivalencies? For example, if employee does one "job" he automatically is credited with 45 hours for that week.

My recollection is that mandatory suspension applies only if you are using the deemed or safe harbor hardship provisions and that the regs don't require suspension under the facts & circumstances option.

k man, My read of the regs is that the QDIA protections don't apply until the end of the 30-day period, but that doesn't mean that the contribution can't be placed in the intended investment.

I'd also amend the AAA plan to clearly exclude the non-AAA employees and not rely on a resolution alone. To follow on Kim's question, the entity that must adopt the amendment (AAA, BBB or CCC) will depend upon whether AAA remains as a separate entity and the terms of the plan document.

OK, I give up. "MYPAA"?

Everyone seems to be focusing on the employer as the source of any "make good" deposit. Doesn't the TPA/trustee or whoever authorized/made the distribution bear some responsibility for paying out assets that it didn't have?

I agree with all of the above. Also, make sure that the asset purchase agreement describes what is happening with the plan.

I may have to get that calculator for my brother-in-law.