Guest dolstein Posted June 12, 2013 Posted June 12, 2013 If a pension plan's governing documents provide for the termination of the plan upon the expiration of a fixed term of years, does the plan automatically violate the permanency requirement under Regulation 1.401-1(b)(2), regardless of how long that term is? Would inlcuding any provision for automatic termination upon the occurrence of a specified event, no matter how remote, disqualify the plan?
ETA Consulting LLC Posted June 12, 2013 Posted June 12, 2013 These are good questions. Presumably, if you were to include such language, you'd have either an IRS opinion letter (if a prototype) or a favorable determination letter. Having such language doesn't preclude you from restating the plan to another document (in order to keep the plan in operation) after the stated event occured. Good Luck! CPC, QPA, QKA, TGPC, ERPA
Effen Posted June 12, 2013 Posted June 12, 2013 Just curious, but why would you put such language in the plan and risk the issue? Seems to me it would be very hard to argue the plan is permanent when you already know when it is going to be terminated. The material provided and the opinions expressed in this post are for general informational purposes only and should not be used or relied upon as the basis for any action or inaction. You should obtain appropriate tax, legal, or other professional advice.
david rigby Posted June 12, 2013 Posted June 12, 2013 I agree with Effen, putting a future termination date in the plan seems pointless, and might be an unnecessary "red flag". On a practical level, a date many years in the future might be irrelevant, but the original post implies something much less. w/r/t termination on "occurrence of a specified event", just a guess: the IRS would view such provisison with skepticism but might consider it permissible. (If bankruptcy is the event in question, it's pretty common to have that in plan documents.) I'm a retirement actuary. Nothing about my comments is intended or should be construed as investment, tax, legal or accounting advice. Occasionally, but not all the time, it might be reasonable to interpret my comments as actuarial or consulting advice.
masteff Posted June 12, 2013 Posted June 12, 2013 You might try to dig up Rev Rul 69-24 and 69-25. Kurt Vonnegut: 'To be is to do'-Socrates 'To do is to be'-Jean-Paul Sartre 'Do be do be do'-Frank Sinatra
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now