terminating plan and no egtrra amendment

[abanky]

I took over a plan from an insurance company which had a prototype document. I had never dealt with this type of document before.

The original document was signed in 94, then in 02, they sent replacement pages for the gust restatement.... then the next amendment was in 05 and was the Automatic Rollover Amendment.

I asked the insurance company where the Egtrra amendment was and was told that they "sent a letter" to all plan sponsors in '01 saying they would be restating the plans with egtrra and since my client terminated service in 07 (yes, 07) they can't won't be restating it for egtrra. Which is fine, since the plan is terminating... but where is the egtrra amendment. Was it required?

[Belgarath]

I'm sure they must have done a "good faith" EGTRRA amendment way back that they sent to all customers. Even though they won't be restating for EGTRRA under the RAP, they should still be able to provide a copy of this amendment - probably for a fee.

[abanky]

That's what i think too.... but according to the representative "there was no "good faith" amendment done and it wasn't needed to be done."

[Guest Sieve]

The rep is wrong. A good-faith EGTRRA amendment was required in order to be able to extend the remedial amendment period for the EGTRRA restatement. If it's a prototype document, then there certainly is an EGTRRA amendment that would have been a tack-on amendment to the 2002 GUST restatement--although it may not have had to be signed by the employer. They certainly should be able to provide that to you (although it may be difficult to find someone who knows what you're talking about!!). Also, there may be a post-EGTRRA amendment, which would have incorporated the MRD regs (if they were not part of the EGTRRA tack-on amendment). Don't forget the availability of correction under VCP--for a small employer, it's pretty cheap.

[abanky]

The rep is wrong. A good-faith EGTRRA amendment was required in order to be able to extend the remedial amendment period for the EGTRRA restatement. If it's a prototype document, then there certainly is an EGTRRA restatement that would have been a tack-on amendment to the 2002 GUST restatement--although it may not have had to be signed by the employer. They certainly should be able to provide that to you (although it may be difficult to find someone who knows what you're talking about!!). Also, there may be a post-EGTRRA amendment, which would have incorporated the MRD regs (if they were not part of the EGTRRA tack-on amendment). Don't forget the availability of correction under VCP--for a small employer, it's pretty cheap.

Thank you. That's what I think to... it is just frustrating, especially when this plan is ready to be termed and paid out.

[Belgarath]

When you say "rep" do you mean an insurance agent? If so, bypass the agent and go directly to the home office.

As Sieve mentions, there may be other amendments as well - as an example, depending upon their cash-out amount definition, there may be a mandatory IRA rollover amendment.

[abanky]

When you say "rep" do you mean an insurance agent? If so, bypass the agent and go directly to the home office.

As Sieve mentions, there may be other amendments as well - as an example, depending upon their cash-out amount definition, there may be a mandatory IRA rollover amendment.

the "rep" was someone "in charge" of this major insurance company pension plan documents or so she said... i got the IRA rollover amendment... which makes this whole situation even weirder. Amendment 10 is gust, amendment 11 is ara.