BentoBox Posted September 16 Posted September 16 I think this is a no-brainer; but wanted to get other's thoughts. Plan A's base plan doc uses a 190 HOS as an equivalency and is merging with and into Plan B, which credits HOS on an hour for hour basis. Plan A will merge into Plan B effective Jan 1 and both use calendar year computation periods. Under Plan A's adoption agreement, all contributions made under Plan A were immediately fully vested and all Plan A participants were immediately eligible upon hire. Plan B provides for a non-elective contribution for certain participating employers with graduated vesting schedules (but former participants in Plan A will not be employed by one of those participating employers as of the date of merger). In the event that a former Plan A participant becomes eligible for a nonelective contribution under Plan B after the merger, I see no reason why Plan B cannot credit vesting service HOS on an hour for hour basis (even though Plan A would have used a 190 HOS equivalency). To me this is a no-brainer - but wanted to see if others agree; because, well, the service crediting rules are complicated and I'm not that smart. Thank you for reading.
Lou S. Posted September 16 Posted September 16 I don't see any problem with the hours of service rule for the participants starting 1/1/2026 for the Plan A participants merged into Plan B. You state that Plan participants are immediately 100% vested and Plan B are subject to graduated schedule. I'd make sure you are in compliance with any change of vesting schedule rules for Plan A participants merged in to Plan B to avoid any potential cutbacks.
BentoBox Posted September 16 Author Posted September 16 Agreed. Thank you. The change in vesting schedule would apply only to nonelective contributions made solely under the terms of Plan B (and only w/r/t certain participating companies in Plan B). I dont think we have to preserve Plan A's immediate vesting for contributions made solely under the terms of Plan B. Let me know if you disagree.
Lou S. Posted September 16 Posted September 16 I think it might depend on the nature of the merge and whether or not the sponsor of Plan A was acquired in a stock or asset transaction or if the Sponsor of Plan A and Sponsor of Plan B are part of a controlled group or not.
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