Belgarath

I didn't know it either!

Austin - in case it wasn't clear, this portion of my last post was regarding the participant's representations only - not whether the withdrawal is otherwise available or not. "Austin - while I normally agree, I'd be a little more conservative on this one, only because it is pushing the edge of the envelope already."

That's one of the arguments for the "other side" that I considered. But it seems pretty clear that if fiancée gets evicted, she will too - hence my comment about being similar to renting. Austin - while I normally agree, I'd be a little more conservative on this one, only because it is pushing the edge of the envelope already.

See Revenue Procedure 2016-51, Section 6.07(3).

I keep waffling on this. I can see arguments for both sides. Of course she'd have to show that the "need" can't reasonably be relieved otherwise, but assuming she can, I don't really see that it is much different than if she were renting and was about to be evicted. Maybe I'm just getting soft in my old age.

By "they" I was referring to the document provider/TPA. So I reiterate my question - have you asked the document provider/TPA WHY they did this?

Haven't seen this. But many documents/checklists provide for either ERISA or non-ERISA - maybe they just checked the wrong box? Hard to even guess without very specific information on any individual plan in question. Have you checked with any of the prior document providers/TPA's to ask them this question?

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you are saying, but you can't use the "maybe" notice for a safe harbor matching provision - only for a nonelective. Looks like ETA and I were responding at the same time, but I type more slowly...

I think you'll find that most Administrators will require an eviction notice from the BANK. I don't believe you'll find a bank willing to produce a false eviction notice. While I truly sympathize with your situation, I'm dubious that it will work.

FWIW... Excluding 3rd shift employees shouldn't be, IMHO, a problem. They could be employed the entire year, and the exclusion isn't based on hours, either directly or indirectly, but on a bona fide employment classification For the "4 month" employees, I think that's a classification based indirectly on service, and you'd need the "fail safe" language.

I'm not sure that's quite true. It is ok to have an excluded class such as part time/temporary/seasonal whose regularly scheduled service is less than 1,000 hours. BUT, the document must have "fail safe" language such that if any of these people complete a Year of Service, then they are no longer in this excluded class. There was a QAB on this subject back in 2006 - can't remember the number offhand.

That may be accurate for a DB plan. Depending upon the formula, even if you aren't accruing future benefits, if your accrued benefit Is, for example, based upon final average compensation, then you are considered an "active participant." So, the fact that the plan was (supposedly) frozen does not necessarily mean you are no longer an "active participant" for the W-2 box. See Treasury Regulation 1.219-2(b)(3).

Hi BG - if I understand what you are saying (and I may not) then I respectfully disagree - making a lot of assumptions about what is truly elected in the document. If truly as I posited, the initial computation period is a 3 consecutive month period, measured from date of hire (analogous to the normal 1 year/1,000 hour calculation - just for 3 months instead of an entire 12-month initial computation year) Once past that, your "3 month" computation period is gone - it isn't a rolling period. Now it is just "normal" 1 year/1,000 hours, measured from date of hire. And it will either revert to plan year after initial 1-year period, or be calculated on employment anniversary years, depending upon what option elected in the AA.

Not entirely sure exactly what option you are using, nor how it is worded. For example, if you are using 3 consecutive months from employment commencement date during which at least 249 hours of service are completed, then you wouldn't need 83 hours in each month. You could have 5 hours in month 1, 5 hours in month 2, and 239 hours in month 3, for example - or lots of other possible combinations. But if you don't make the 239 in that first 3 month period, then you'd revert to the 1 yr/1,000 hour, measured from the date of employment. You may have a different type of option chosen, or be using an "other" election that you've filled in. As BG suggested, contact Sungard (now FIS) if you can't determine it based upon the election(s) in your AA.

I've done it exactly as ESOP guy did, and used the same methodology for VCP filings with the IRS as well. Always has been accepted without question. "Past performance is no guarantee of future results!"

Yeah, we got ours last week from FIS. Haven't had a chance to look at it to see if anything changed from the last "draft" document - but I'm going to ask them instead to save time!

This question is really academic at this point, but could apply to a future situation. Suppose you have corporation A - a couple of doctors, or dentists, or lawyers, or whatever. They decide to go their separate ways. Corporation A will remain intact, no changes to the plan, etc. Mr. B will form new corporation B. Some of the employees of corporation A will come over to work for him - or of course they can quit. He'll just establish a new plan. (it could be handled as a spinoff, but for reasons not pertinent to this discussion, probably won't, and not worth getting into!) I don't think there's any solid argument that these terminations from corporation A are "voluntary" so it seems to me that if they weren't already 100% vested, they would need to be. Any other opinions? Also, since a new employer is being established, seems like they are entitled to distributions if they choose, (cash, rollover to IRA or new plan, etc.)

Thanks Mike - that's the issue that was concerning me as well. P.S. - thanks Jpod - although I don't really have an opinion as to whether benefitting your brother rises to a PT, doesn't it benefit himself? By that that I mean he is an owner and fiduciary of Corp B and Plan B - so if a transaction using assets of another plan (A) in which he is a fiduciary benefits himself as owner of another business (B) in which he's an owner and fiduciary for Plan B, is that self-dealing? I started off thinking it was a PT, then I started questioning myself, then over the weekend I waffled back to my original position. Of course we'll recommend legal counsel, but trying to refine my own opinion... happy Monday!

John Doe and his spouse own 100% of corporation A. No employees. They have a qualified plan. John Doe and his spouse, together, own 40% of Corporation B. No other attributed ownership in corporation B. Corporation B sponsors a qualified plan. There is no CG/ASG. John Doe's brother own the majority of the remaining 60% of corporation B. John Doe wants his PLAN, Plan A, to purchase some of the stock owned by his BROTHER in corporation B. My initial reaction was that it is a PT, but now I'm not so sure. Any opinions?

Way off topic, (nothing whatsoever to do with retirement plans, in fact) but one of the funniest things I've ever read, which happens to be by Twain, can be found at the link below. http://twain.lib.virginia.edu/projects/rissetto/offense.html

A bargain at twice the price!!

I don't have time to do any research on this, but for anyone like me who knows nothing about family foundations, this article is quite informative. http://www.americanbar.org/newsletter/publications/law_trends_news_practice_area_e_newsletter_home/familyfoundation.html

You do see some strange things in non-ERISA plans. Consider the following, which I think is likely a bad idea from employee relations and/or union contract deals, but I can't see anything technically wrong with it in terms of violating the 403(b) regs. Any other thoughts? Maybe I'm missing something. This is for EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS ONLY. Deferrals appropriately follow all the "normal" rules. 2-year eligibility (1,000 hours for a YOS) for employer contributions. Plan year is calendar. Fiscal year is 6/30 Y/E. If you don't meet your eligibility in the first two employment years, subsequent eligibility computation periods shift to the FISCAL year BEGINNING AFTER the end of the two year period. So, in essence, it would be possible to completely ignore nearly an entire year of service depending on hire date - for example, if hired on July 15th, and you don't meet eligibility in the first two years, then the next eligibility period doesn't begin until 7/1 of the following year. Is that strange, or what? Anyone ever seen anything similar? P.S. - I'm dubious that many of the new Pre-approved documents, when available, would permit this anyway...

You're welcome. Also, if it helps, I just took a look at the EOB, and Sal has a footnote that IRS Notice 2002-4 has a discussion that supports the view that the IRS is still applying the principles in the GCM above.

No can do. In the situation you describe, can't be earlier than age 65. See 1.457-4(c)(3)(v).