oldman63 Posted August 23, 2017 Posted August 23, 2017 A governmental money purchase plan (which did not permit in-service withdrawals) is merging into a grandfathered 401(k) plan, which permit hardship withdrawals. Following the merger, does the money purchase monies have to be segregated to retain the in-service withdrawal restriction OR can participants take hardship withdrawals of these dollars?
CuseFan Posted August 23, 2017 Posted August 23, 2017 Not sure about the implications for a governmental plan, but I'm of the opinion that you should always track different money types separately at all times, regardless - and whether or not there are different restrictions on the different types. My thought, w/o research, is that there is no reason or basis upon which you can now allow in-service w/d on the MP dollars, the merger shouldn't change anything in that regard. hr for me and Bill Presson 2 Kenneth M. Prell, CEBS, ERPA Vice President, BPAS Actuarial & Pension Services kprell@bpas.com
ESOP Guy Posted August 23, 2017 Posted August 23, 2017 Don't you have to keep it segregated for the J&S rules? In non-government MPPs if you merged it into a 4k plan you would have to offer J&S on the MPP money. An MPP is a type of pension plan that is covered by the J&S rules. Since this is a merge those are protected benefits. I am with CuseFan you always track the types of money separate. If it never comes up it doesn't take much effort to do so. If you need to separate the money out after of years not tracking them separate that is a near impossible task. hr for me 1
oldman63 Posted August 23, 2017 Author Posted August 23, 2017 I also held the common belief that the MP dollars had to be accounted for separately. In researching this issue, I found that because a merger does not entitle participants to a distribution of their account balances, the IRS has ruled that the assets and liabilities attributable to a money purchase plan must be accounted for separately and must retain their attribute as money purchase plan assets and liabilities ( Rev. Rul. 94-76) Specifically, accounts must remain subject to the joint and survivor annuity provisions of IRC Sections 401(a)(11) and 417. In addition, the new or amended profit-sharing plan must not permit distributions of the money purchase plan accounts before retirement, death, disability, severance from employement, or termination of the plan.
Belgarath Posted August 23, 2017 Posted August 23, 2017 Governmental plans are not subject to the J&S requirements of 401(a)(11) and 417. I don't know that this changes the answer re hardship distributions, but depending upon the type of governmental plan (public safety, for example) the NRA might well have been less than age 62. However, going from memory, the anti-cutback rules of 411(d)(6) also don't apply to governmental plans. If so, then a lot would depend upon the document provisions. This could get really tricky. There are some proposed regs re NRA on governmental plans, but I frankly haven't paid much attention, as we don't do governmental plans. Maybe someone else more familiar with them can give you a better discussion of the subject, and whether any of it applies to your situation anyway. Regardless of what MUST be done, I'm with previous posters that you should ALWAYS track the amounts separately!
CuseFan Posted August 23, 2017 Posted August 23, 2017 2 hours ago, Belgarath said: Governmental plans are not subject to the J&S requirements of 401(a)(11) and 417 That is my understanding as well, but doesn't answer the question in-service withdrawal questions. I would defer to the original (MP) document and if it didn't allow for those dollars I would not allow under the new merged plan. Kenneth M. Prell, CEBS, ERPA Vice President, BPAS Actuarial & Pension Services kprell@bpas.com
Bri Posted August 24, 2017 Posted August 24, 2017 Occasionally you can wind up with a poorly-drafted document in a government plan that left the J&S rules in place for the plan, even though they weren't needed.
david rigby Posted August 24, 2017 Posted August 24, 2017 52 minutes ago, Bri said: Occasionally you can wind up with a poorly-drafted document in a government plan that left the J&S rules in place for the plan, even though they weren't needed. Occasionally? Carol V. Calhoun and Bri 2 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.
Carol V. Calhoun Posted September 20, 2017 Posted September 20, 2017 On 8/24/2017 at 1:49 PM, david rigby said: Occasionally? I remember a long time ago saying jokingly to someone at IRS, "You'll be horrified to discover that some of our governmental plans don't comply with all of the IRS qualification requirements." Her disbelieving response was, "You mean some of them do?" david rigby and My 2 cents 1 1 Employee benefits legal resource site The opinions of my postings are my own and do not necessarily represent my law firm's position, strategies, or opinions. The contents of my postings are offered for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. A visit to this board or an exchange of information through this board does not create an attorney-client relationship. You should consult directly with an attorney for individual advice regarding your particular situation. I am not your lawyer under any circumstances.
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