Participant has an account in a money purchase pension plan and an account with a 401(k) plan. Participant meets the requirements for a lump sum distribution from the MPPP. He takes the lump sum, and then timely rolls it over into his 401(k). The 401(k) permits loans to participants. Can the participant use the amount rolled over into the 401(k) for a loan? Assume he meets all the other requirements for a loan under the plan document but the plan document doesn't speak to whether a participant can use money rolled into the 401(k) plan for a loan.

[Advert.]

The Employee Benefits Glossary is your essential guide to the world of employee benefits. Inside you'll find definitions for more than 4,000 employee benefit terms and 1,000 acronyms. Order Now!

Appears that DOL Philadelphia Region has started another round of letters inviting participation in VFCP based on transgressions reported on 5500s filed "within the past 2 years" (sample attached). They're also offering free webinar workshops on VFCP that are open to all and are well worth attending.

Client has a safe harbor plan that currently states that employee is eligible for safe harbor match as of the entry date following completion of first hour of service. Under Section III.D.2. of IRS Notice 2016-16, can the plan be amended PROSPECTIVELY mid-year to require NEW employees to complete a year of service before becoming eligible for the safe harbor match? I believe the guidance allows it, but I wonder whether anyone has done this. Would the employer need to provide a new safe notice to existing participants?

Plan has 100 participants. All had become participants on the effective date of the plan. Let's assume 6 year graded vesting. Two years in, everyone is 20% vested. Early in the third year, the employer fired 25 employees for dishonesty. Assuming the plan population has stayed at 100, is this a partial termination? In determining the ratio, since these terminations are employer initiated, it would seem like we would have 25 on top and 100 on the bottom. If it's a partial termination, must the plan vest the 25 dishonest former employees 100% in their accrued benefits? I would guess so, but it doesn't seem fair.