100% vesting is required, even if same desk rules applies, correct?

[John A]

Is the following correct:

The same desk rule has no effect on vesting, so participants in the terminated plan have to be 100% vested in the money from the terminated plan, even though those same participants are not entitled to a distribution from the terminate plan.

Thoughts?

[david rigby]

I think that these are separate issues. But, to clarify, are you stating that there is (or might be?) a partial termination without regard to the "same desk" rule?

[M R Bernardin]

If a plan is terminated pursuant to some sort of corporate transaction, participants are 100% vested regardless of whether they are treated as not having separated from service under the same desk rule. However, the participants could still be entitled to a distribution, even though they have not separated from service, under the "plan termination" distribution provision.

[Alf]

I think all participants have to be entitled to distributions from a terminated plan in order for it to terminate. Right? How else would you get the money out of the trust? A spin-off or trust transfer would work, I guess, but you would still end up with another plan somewhere. If you have accounts for former participants that are not distributable under the "separation from service" distributable event provision because of the same desk rule, those accounts will be distributable on the termination of the plan.