HarleyBabe Posted July 11, 2013 Posted July 11, 2013 Have a plan that was a controlled group because the owner owned 100% of two similar firms. He is selling one of them completely and will have no interest any longer. What do I do with this Plan now. The other employer would like to maintain the Plan. Because they are similar firms, both rehabs, can we have a Multiple Employer Plan and have one firm be the sponsoring firm? Or is this a Spin off situation. I basically need ABC instructions on what to do Plan Doc wise and best way to approach. Thank You.
QDROphile Posted July 11, 2013 Posted July 11, 2013 A multiple employer plan is feasible and not that much trouble. Some testing and reporting is done employer-by-employer, so some ecomomies of scale are lost and the serivce providers have to know what they are doing. The plan and trust documents will have to be amended. Spin off works, too, and will give each employer complete freedom and responsibility with respect to their plans.
HarleyBabe Posted July 11, 2013 Author Posted July 11, 2013 So, if we do a spin off, what are the steps I should take with the document, moving the money from the current account and opening a new... How do I show the loss of employees, as just terminated per say?
12AX7 Posted July 15, 2013 Posted July 15, 2013 Just to backtrack a bit, I'm not convinced that there is necessarily an option for a multiple-employer plan in this situation. If there is no longer common ownership, what is the factor that binds the employers to a MEP? If a spin-off is done, the current plan document should reflect that the prior related employer is no longer an adopting entity of the plan, a new plan and trust (account) is created for the spin-off plan to receive the assets. Not sure what you mean about showing the loss of employees - do you mean on the Form 5500? It all takes a little bit of planning and timing to get the pieces together.
QDROphile Posted July 15, 2013 Posted July 15, 2013 What requirement is there for a binding factor other than a desire to particpate?
12AX7 Posted July 15, 2013 Posted July 15, 2013 My concern was more with the "closed MEP" rather than the "open MEP" concept. Othern than a single plan document, what would be the advantage?
QDROphile Posted July 15, 2013 Posted July 15, 2013 Possible economies or critical mass for certain services such as fiduciary and investment management. I don't favor MEPS of truly unrelated employers, MY point was more that that they are feasible and not to be feared. The question was "Can we have a MEP?"
MoJo Posted July 16, 2013 Posted July 16, 2013 What requirement is there for a binding factor other than a desire to particpate? Check out the DOL's Advisory Opinion 2012-04A. They will treat such an arrangement as TWO SEPARATE PLANS, albeit using a common document, absent some commonality that binds the companies (as fiduciaries).
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