Leaderboard

You are so kind.

Yes and no. The loan offset does not require withholding if it's the only distribution. If he took a distribution to pay back the loan, he would need to gross it up for the 20% tax withholding.

plus the profit sharing provisions in the plan

When I first read the title, I couldn't figure out how how a cancellation created a powerpoint.

Short answer, yes, it is generally possible. There are a LOT of plan document and design issues that must be addressed, including compensation period and compensation definition, coverage/nondiscrimination issues, 415 limits, effect on top heavy, etc., etc.

The fact that a government contract was canceled does not, in and of itself, result in a partial plan termination. The PPT is determined starting with a "rebuttable presumption" that all participant terminations are involuntary. You can then prove otherwise, if you can, based on facts and circumstances. Were all these people already 100% vested in all accounts? If so, the PPT has no real effect. There are few absolutes in this arena - see the Matz case. But in most circumstances, if your turnover rate was at least 20% involuntary terminations, then I agree, it is a PPT, barring unusual or egregious circumstances. If, as you say, it was less than 20%, then it would generally not be a PPT. Your situation seems pretty straightforward. Don't forget to take into account the CAA relief, if applicable, with your March 31, 2021 participant count when determining PPT status for 2020.

Sorry, apparently I submitted this twice. Once is enough!!!

I don't think I would call it an offset - I'd call it a distribution of the loan balance, and yes, I think it can be done. If the plan administrator and/or recordkeeper balk, then he could take a distribution of cash equal to the loan balance and then pay off the loan and get to the same place.

Related. From the top-heavy regs: T-32 Q. How are rollovers and plan-to-plan transfers treated in testing whether a plan is top-heavy? A. The rules for handling rollovers and transfers depend upon whether they are unrelated (both initiated by the employee and made from a plan maintained by one employer to a plan maintained by another employer) or related (a rollover or transfer either not initiated by the employee or made to a plan maintained by the same employer). Generally, a rollover or transfer made incident to a merger or consolidation of two or more plans or the division of a single plan into two or more plans will not be treated as being initiated by the employee. The fact that the employer initiated the distribution does not mean that the rollover was not initiated by the employee. For purposes of determining whether two employers are to be treated as the same employer, all employers aggregated under section 414(b), (c) or (m) are treated as the same employer. In the case of unrelated rollovers and transfers, (1) the plan making the distribution or transfer is to count the distribution as a distribution under section 416(g)(3), and (2) the plan accepting the rollover or transfer is not to consider the rollover or transfer as part of the accrued benefit if such rollover or transfer was accepted after December 31, 1983, but is to consider it as part of the accrued benefit if such rollover or transfer was accepted prior to January 1, 1984. In the case of related rollovers and transfers, the plan making the distribution or transfer is not to count the distribution or transfer under section 416(g)(3) and the plan accepting the rollover or transfer counts the rollover or transfer in the present value of the accrued benefits. Rules for related rollovers and transfers do not depend on whether the rollover or transfer was accepted prior to January 1, 1984.

I agree with the prior commenter. Most plans will terminate COBRA immediately on your being covered by your new employer's plan if that new coverage starts after you have made your COBRA election. It is possible that Anthem realized that your COBRA coverage was no longer valid, and they may refuse to process your claims at all on that coverage. COB with COBRA and another plan only makes sense when your other coverage was already in place before you made your COBRA election. In that case, I would agree that the participant/dependent rule applies.

This is a tricky one because you were likely supposed to notify your COBRA plan when you became enrolled in other employer-sponsored coverage. If a claim is filed and they find out you had other coverage for that month, they could potentially terminate your COBRA retroactively back to the day before your new coverage is effective. You might want to check your if your COBRA plan required such notification before counting on having two coverages for that month.

The successor rule applies to 401(k) Plans. Their payroll company is confused.

As an update Mr. Preston, The 999 days apparently was an error by the plan administrator, it has been changed to 60 days. Mr. Hatlee upon my request I was given an SPD, it was the first I have seen this document, my co-workers have never seen it either. With that said the SPD and what is on the Internet are the same. It seems my employer assumed since it was on the web sight no further action was needed. He will be having a company wide meeting concerning this soon. Mr. Zeller you hit the nail on the head. However within the plan I can take a "In Service Withdrawal" after 59-1/2 of any amount I choose, there is a fee for this. This can be the entire amount and roll it into a tax exempt IRA. Or I can I can leave the money in the plan and take another in service withdrawal as need until 65. At 65 the plan allows for the administrator to start monthly payments to me, as well as handle federal taxes and RMD's when it is time. And yes, there is also a fee from the administrator. Mr. Britton. Maybe I should not have used the word retire. I have been working at this company since I was in high school. I simply plan on trying something different and see what the rest of the world is like. I have plenty of money without accessing my SS. Thanks for the comment everyone!!!

Everyone has different goals and financial situations. I'm not sure a blanket statement about when to retire or electing when to receive SS works for everyone.

The monthly increases to age 70 are based on when you start your benefit, not when you stop working. Prompt distribution of the 401(k) plan account could help the individual wait to start receiving soc sec benefits. As Mike said, there are a lot of variables. Certainly, if an individual has less than 35 years of earnings, they should think hard about whether they should continue to work. Basically, anyone in his/her 60's should establish their soc sec account online and look at their earnings history and think through some "what-ifs."

Just because somebody "retires" doesn't mean they will start Social Security. Besides, the decision to retire at any age is subject to so many individual data points there is absolutely no way you can state that it doesn't make sense. You just don't know.

I would worry more if the place holder were 666.

My guess is that the 999 was meant as a placeholder by whoever programmed the website. I would be very surprised if 999 turned out to be an accurate number.