Leaderboard

I am not aware of any age restrictions in the code or regs that would prohibit it. Assuming \document allows for after tax and you don't have testing issues. If you did it properly you might be able to make the after tax contributions, do in plan roth conversion, then roll out newly convereted Roth piece to ROTH-IRA before end of year and avoid RMDs enitirely on them as well. essentially doing an end run around around both the ROTH IRA age limit and ROTH IRA dollar limit.

I have a copy of the Universal Pensions, Inc. Qualified Retirement Plan and Trust Defined Contribution Basic Plan Document 01 with #8000 (8/2001) at the bottom, and it may be what you need. I maintain a database of basic plan documents for exactly this reason, and occasionally it pays off. If I'm doing this correctly, a copy will be attached to this post. I hope it is what you are looking for! Universal Pensions Prototype Basic Plan Document 2001.pdf

2003 should have been a GUST document, but Universal Pensions, Inc. isn't listed with any prototype documents on the IRS' GUST list. They only show as sponsoring three volume submitter documents. https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/list-of-preapproved-plans Scroll down for the older lists. Do you have a copy of the opinion letter for the adoption agreement? If you do, there is a number on it that indicates which document provider prepared the document.

DAVE--- Thanks--your insight is valuable--- Really dumb q--I'm having trouble finding the search engine---Does not have anything to do with the fact that I grew up as a Cleveland Indians fan and Browns fan and lived about 10 minutes from the Cavs stadium ? Thanks-- BOB

As you undoubtedly know, the actuary must follow the Labor Code section 1393(a) in setting the discount assumption for withdrawal liability. The law that the actuary must follow in setting the discount rate for funding purposes has similar -- but not identical -- language in section 1084(c). You probably also know that the employer has a larger burden to overcome regarding the appropriateness of actuarial assumptions used for withdrawal liability. Regardless, you probably want to start by reviewing the stated reasons by the actuary as to why he/she thinks one discount rate is reasonable for funding and a different rate is reasonable for withdrawal liability.

rp-19-19 New.pdf This copy should have retained the original formatting but with added page numbers in the TOC. You should also be able to click the line in the TOC and have it take you to the page in question. I'll probably make a re-formatted one with less pages and TOC that goes down 5 levels (Part 1 / Section 1 / .01 / (1) / (a)) but I'm not sure when I'll have time to do it.

Another way if you are already in a posting by that person..you can just click on the name to go to that profile and then click "see their activity" and get there a bit faster... Of course that only works if i am on a post that you are participating in.

J Simmons, as explained across several answers above, I would be confident that if you carefully review the plan provisions and maybe the beneficiary designation form, they will say that the spouse (i.e., #2) is the beneficiary for all of the account. The only other option is that the plan had a J&S and a QPSA for at least 50% of account, and that is almost never the case. Of course, if spouse 1 or the children have a QDRO, that should trump.

Doesn't 401(a)(11)(B)(iii) make the spouse the default beneficiary in a PSP? So, I don't see how the current spouse doesn't have a right to the benefit unless there is a QDRO issue.

First, annual "audit expenses" required for the Form 5500 may be charged to the plan (I hate to be a stickler, but not *all* auditor's expenses fall into this category - for example, certain "project related" expenses not required for the Form 5500). Second, you quote the SPD - which is fine - but it is *not* the plan document. Make sure the plan document ITSELF provides that plan expenses may be charged to the plan (and how - "pro-rata", "per capita" or whatever). If I had a nickel for every time the SPD was inconsistent with the actual plan document ... oh I regress. Just make certain.