Leaderboard

Have I seen smaller gaps between the mailing of the distribution form and the first payments? Yes The gap being discussed doesn't seem outside reasonable. By law they have to give people 30 days to reply to the forms. So if they want to do them in a single batch that means they can't send checks before 6/15. It does take a few weeks to get all the checks ready and make sure no one is over or under paid. After all if someone is over paid they aren't very likely to return the payment when told about the over payment. So it is important to get the amounts right. So if you add a week or two to the 6/15 date you are getting to around 7/1. They should give you a copy of the SPD but I doubt it will tell you that they are required to make the payment faster. It most likely uses "as soon as administratively feasible" language. So they will claim the time frame outline is what is administratively feasible. If the question is it normal to wait until the IRS issues the Determination Letter that is very common practice. Does it sound like they could have done a better job communicating-- yea it does. But bad communication and you have an actionable complaint isn't often times the same thing. Hope that helps.

It depends on the meaning intended to convey by the use of the phrase "qualified plan." I think when most "ERISA people" use it they mean a plan described in IRC Section 401(a), which would not include a plan described in 403(b). On the other hand, many people in the financial services industry often refer to all tax-favored retirement vehicles, including IRAs, as "qualified," or the money held in them as "qualified assets."

if it involves a distribution of an HCE then it just smells bad, especially if you have paid out some NHCEs earlier in the year

Actually, we expect that they WILL just take the reversion. The Administrator just wants to know the options.

You said a "non-profit," so I am going to make the assumption that it is exempt from Federal income tax. Tell us why they don't want to take the reversion?

If you want to get philosophical about it, there really shouldn't be any difference between qualified retirement money and any other money. Someone who was never covered by a "retirement plan" could still save money "for retirement" - does that deserve less protection? The environment has changed an awful lot since ERISA, and some lines are blurry and some are sharp, and they shouldn't always be the way they are. Anyway, yes I think there are a fair number of people with non-retirement assets.

Or slightly more accurately you have to add the 2015 excess to any amount contributed for 2016 to see if over the 2016 limit. If still over the limit you pay the excise tax again. So if they put in exactly 25% for 2016 you would pay another year's excise tax on the over contribution amount.