Leaderboard

No actually it is definitely a plan imposed limit. The PLAN says I can impose a cap on HCE's to pass testing. This is pretty well documented, I didn't come up with it on my own.

Getting rid of the reversion excise tax would be a good start. Allowing some access to surplus funds without having to terminate to fund employee health coverage costs would be another. I am sure that there are plenty of smart policy wonks in DC who could come up with ideas.

1. Eliminating retiree buyouts altogether is, in my mind, the exact reason for the notice. Just because they let Ford do it a couple of years ago does not mean that it is something that should be permitted. As far as I am concerned, if their stated reason had been "because we said so" instead of whatever point they were making with respect to 401(a)(9), it would have been as welcome to me. I am opposed to the idea of the plan sponsor trying to save money by persuading retirees to give up their annuities. I might think differently if they were being offered lump sums based on insurance company net purchase rates instead of the rates under 417(e). 2. I don't think that it is possible to explain a lump sum buyout to a retiree population in a way that will be clearly understood by the retirees. I don't think that anyone already in pay status should be offered any choices when a defined benefit plan terminates, because of the potential for abuse. Let people not in pay status choose lump sums (whether doing so is in their best interests or not), but the sponsor should have to get out the wallet to buy annuities for those already retired. 3. Even if you do explain the offer in a way that allows the retirees to clearly understand their choices, while there may be some exceptions, how many septuagenarians and octogenarians are able to suddenly become competent investment managers? 4. If the participant had retired with spouse A, under a QJSA, then later divorced and married spouse B, how do you handle the spousal consent requirements for the election to cash the annuity out? Surely you would need the consent of spouse A (who would be losing his or her potential survivor annuity) and spouse B (since canceling the original QJSA for a new annuity start date would also require waiver of the QJSA for the current spouse), and what incentive would spouse A have to give up the survivor benefit? 5. And then there are the people unable to act on their own behalf. If a nursing home has power of attorney for a resident retiree, is it not obvious that there is a serious conflict of interest?

All individual taxpayers get an automatic 6 month extension to Oct 15 by filing form 4868. There is an automatic mid june extension for US citizens/resident aliens who live outside the US or PR and whose main place of business or post of duty is outside US or PR or are outside the US/PR on military duty. There is no 60 day extension for investors instead of filing form 4868. I don't know where this guy gets his information.

Under the IRC a couple is considered married for the entire year if they are married at the end of the year. Under IRS regs a qualified plan can be established on the last day of the plan year and employee compensation earned during the plan year can be included in determining the employer contribution for the year. If the couple is married in Nov 2015 and a 401k plan for calendar year 2015 is adopted on Dec 31, 2015 why isn't the plan eligible to be a solo 401k plan for 2015?

Isn't there a greater degree of protection from creditors if the money is in a qualified plan than in an IRA?