A 403(b) plan would like to establish a loan interest rate of the prime lending rate, in effect as of the first day of each calendar quarter, plus 1%. Do you see any problems with this policy?

[Advert.]

Worldwide Employee Benefits Network provides me a forum for education and information exchange with other Benefits Executives. Join today.

What if a plan offers a BRF but only to employees who are participants as of a certain date, but not to any new participants. For example, participant loans. Is BRF testing required?

Client is part of a controlled group. Two members of the controlled group: Company A and Company B. Each Company maintains its own profit sharing plan. Each is able to pass coverage annually under the ratio test, taking into account the employees from the other company in the coverage group. They did so for the 2017 year. In 3/2018, Company A acquires Company C via a stock acquisition. Now all three (A, B, C) are members of the same controlled group. For the 2018 year, they are looking to take advantage of the transition rule. Does the transition rule dictate that the plans for both A and B are automatically deemed to satisfy coverage (assuming that no significant changed during the transition period) and no coverage testing is required at all, OR does the coverage testing still need to be run for the plans of A and B taking into account the employees in A and B and not C?

The regulations say a separation from service occurs when a participant's level of service drops to 20% of less of what it had been (I know that's simplified). It also says you can choose a different percentage so long as it is greater than 20% but no larger than 50%. This makes sense, because an employer could set it at 1% and then the parties could agree the employee will hardly do anything but still not have a separation as a method to control the payment date. This also implies that you can have a broader definition of separation from service, but not a narrower definition of separation from service. So here is my problem: I have two related companies -- they are related, but they are not related enough to be considered the same employer under the regulations. The Plan says separation from service is determined according to 409A, but a transfer between the companies is not a separation from service. This appears to be a narrower definition of separation from service -- is this allowed under the regulations?

Note: I understand that under the separation regulations, companies only have to be 50% related (not 80% like under the normal rule). I also understand the plan can provide that the companies can be as little as 20% related. We can't do that here, as the companies are not even 20% related -- and, even if they were, our plan doesn't state this, and any amendment to reduce relations to 20% is only applicable for future elections to defer.

The "benefits, rights and features" rules of Internal Revenue Code section 401(a)(4) apply to all stock bonus, pension or profit sharing plans but don't apply to governmental 457(b) plans. Do they apply to governmental 401(a) plans? To governmental 403(b) plans? If BRF doesn't apply, are there some similar standards that apply to governmental plans?

A plan sponsor erroneously put in a stop date in its payroll system for a participant's loan. The last loan payment was in September 2017. The loan now is past the cure period of December 31. It's set to be re-amortized over the term of the loan. Does the sponsor need to file through VCP, or can it self-correct because it's within the two-year period?

I have a terminating plan with 4 remaining participants, none of whom can be located. The recordkeeper will not set up an IRA for them without a address. Can anyone recommend a rollover company that these participants balances can be put into and the plan closed? It's only a total of $361 among the four; each has less than $100.

A large client with a 401k plan has a subsidiary that's an adopting employer. The subsidiary was acquired in 2009. They don't have payroll records for this location prior to 2013. They need to process a distribution request for an employee with service from 2004-2014. They have 2013-2014 but payroll is missing from 2004-2012. They need to determine the participant's vesting for years prior to 2013 and want us to come up with a clever assumption. Could they go to the IRS for copies of prior W-2's? Or use elapsed time for 2004 -- 2012 and grant 9 years of vesting service such that the participant would be 100% vested, and do the same thing for all other affected participants?