Leaderboard

I'm not sure you can force an in-kind distribution on a participant. I sure as heck don't want anyone foisting a fractional share of real estate on me in lieu of cash.

IMHO, not filing on time because "the auditor attachment is not ready" is a terrible reason to be late.

That is my understanding. The other choice is to file late and know what your fine is with a DFVC filing.

that depends. maybe . check the document. for instance 8. Top-Heavy Allocations Top-Heavy allocations are made to a. [ X ] This Plan. Participants who share in Top-Heavy minimum allocations: i. [ ] Non-Key only. Any Participant who is employed by the Employer on the last day of the Plan Year and is not a Key Employee ii. [ X ] All Participants. Any Participant who is employed by the Employer on the last day of the Plan Year you indicated the top-heavy was a 1% "allocation". but if all employees receive the allocation, then it sound like the key person receives as well (his deferral doesn't sound like an allocation). but since he deferred 1% he is now at 2%. oops I just increased my top heavy. but I haven't seen a write up on how this is supposed to be interpreted, so what do I know.

Might depend on what they want to do with it but if it is coming out of the plan and going back to the employer I'd say absolutely not. Saying "oops we changed our mind" is not a mistake in fact.

I think you just have to take a practical approach to this. The check is no good so Empower effectively has the money. Get them to reissue a check, probably to your new bank (with some difficulty). Start all over. It's up to you and your system whether you can amend the 1099 as if it never happened (technically correct and probably not all that difficult) or leave that be and treat it as if it's "just" a correction and not issue a new 1099 for 2018. Make sure whatever moron dropped the ball doesn't screw this up again.

I guess what 401king is positing is that one payment was missed and they defaulted the loan because that particular payment was never made up. But as Lou S. notes, the participant could/would/should just be one payment behind all the time and it's no big deal - happens all the time. This doesn't exactly make sense although I guess they are describing the loan rather than an action. The whole thing is so lame that it makes you wonder if Wells Fargo has figured out a way to make money on loan defaults.

The short term solution is to obtain a proper valuation of the land and distribute a fractional interest to the other participant. Then, the dentist can buy it from her, and she can roll it over if she wants to.

Unfortunately sliding the price down does not necessarily trigger buyers in any kind of uniform manner. If someone is not willing to pay 60 cents on the dollar then the dollar is probably overvalued. Not sure what to say that is actually helpful here. For anyone reading this, it is another poster child for not having real estate in a qualified plan.

I think the best answer is "as long as it takes to be able to prove that someone is getting or got the right benefit." IOW forever.

Not sure I understand. The 410(b)(6)(C) transition rule is not on the table, since the plans were merged, thereby changing their eligibility. Also, it is indicated that while the target store's employees joined the plan as of the date of merger, they were not given credit for service towards match requirement. If you merge the plans the surviving plan has to credit all service that was credited under nonsurviving plan.