Leaderboard

The 50% limit is applicable to the time the loan is issued, not for the full life of the loan. And yes this is correctable under EPCRS in many cases. Some record keepers accrue the interest but but don't "post it" unless a payment is made or distribution made.

Interesting comment. I would not have said that, but that might just mean I am out of touch. Hard to say what "most" are doing when there are only limited opportunities to network due to COVID. I agree that larger variable plans are becoming more popular, but I haven't seen that thinking invade small plan land.

I believe the provisions that require consideration of options say "who owns or is considered owning...." Unvested options definitely do not count anyway as they are not yet exercisable.

Just because a volume submitter was submitted for an IRS determination letter does not make it "individually designed". VS documents with modified language are required to be submitted for D-letters, if you want one because they cannot rely on specimen opinion letter, but these are NOT IDPs and are on the 6-year cycle for restatements - unless the modifications were extensive enough to no longer qualify as VS (I have never seen). It is possible that the plans were submitted on a 5300 and treated as IDPs and then otherwise required to follow the 5-year restatement and submission cycle which no longer exists. In either case, there would be at least one if not two applicable cycles post 2009. Go to the IRS website or Google 6-year (and/or 5-year) restatement cycles. Google is a wonderful thing. All that said - you are never really REQUIRED to submit for D-letters, but you ARE required to maintain an updated plan document whether through amendments or restatements.

If you have access to the EOB, there is a paragraph on this subject in the definition of "key employee." I think you would find it very helpful. But it basically agrees with your thinking on this. However, it also references an 83(b) election, and refers you to RR 2012-29 for guidance on 83(b) elections. (Edited for typo)

you might be able to verify it from this spreadsheet. haven't looked at it in years, only look at this website once and awhile heck, I'm retired so I m not going any farther than that... ideal salary current.xls

You stated the plan is top-heavy. Due to the PS allocation, the plan is not TH exempt, so those whose deferrals are too low to get a 3% of pay match must get a TH minimum. If they are OEE that just means they won’t have to get the minimum gateway, which you indicated is just slightly over 3%.

It depends on the plan definition. If your plan uses elapsed time, use elapsed time service to determine 1 year of eligibility service (for the otherwise excludible employee rule). See 1.410(a)-7(c)(2) for how elapsed time works for determining a year of service with respect to eligibility to participate. (Those regs are ancient and were written when plans were allowed to use age 25 and 1-year of service, but the same principles still apply). From your description it seems this person is probably not otherwise excludible, but you have to look at the service spanning rules to see if they have less than a year of service as of each of the entry dates during the plan year. (Otherwise excludibles for an elapsed time plan would be those who you let in with less than 1 year of elapsed time service, not those with more than a year of elapsed time service who you could have determined to have less than a year using a different method of counting service).

First, if you haven’t already done so, check whether the distribution from the defined-benefit pension plan is rollover-eligible. While you know that law, many participants have mistaken assumptions. Also, the participant should check whether the governmental 457(b) plan allows Roth contributions to designated Roth accounts, and whether the plan allows an in-plan Roth rollover. Not all plans provide this. Even if tax law might permit this participant’s desired move to Roth treatment in one transaction, a participant depends on the receiving plan’s recordkeeper’s practical ability and willingness to make the records that support the desired tax treatment. One suspects a recordkeeper might prefer the two-step. Anyhow, the participant should ask the recordkeeper what to do so the processing would get the desired result.

He isn't. Give it back, all of it, it is a mistake in fact.

To be clear, this filing information goes thru the IRS, but they don't use it. The SSA is the agency that uses this information.

Once had someone who was reported as D on the SSA, then still got the SSA letter, and questioned her benefit from the Plan even after we sent her a copy of her notarized signed election form and 1099-R claiming "I don't remember getting that." Mind you this was years after the Plan went through a PBGC Plan Termination and had paid out all assets. Though I think the DOL/IRS is better about removing "D coded participants" since electronic filing of forms.

https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/penalties-related-to-the-filing-of-forms-8955-ssa You may not use it and the IRS may not catch it but the penalties for not filing are rather steep and there is no "small plan exception" to filing the form.