Leaderboard

No This is also not correct The maximum deduction is equal to the greatest of: The minimum required contribution under section 430, Funding Target + Target Normal Cost + Cushion Amount - Assets, or If the plan is not subject to section 430(i), Funding Target determined as if the plan were subject to 430(i) + Target Normal Cost determined as if the plan were subject to 430(i) - Assets The cushion amount is equal to: 50% of the funding target, plus If plan benefits are based on compensation, the amount that the funding target would increase if future compensation increases were taken into account If plan benefits are not based on compensation, the amount that the funding target would increase if expected benefit increases for succeeding years were taken into account, based on the average annual benefit increase over the last 6 years

The father's IRA in effect became his inherited IRA after the sister transferred her portion out whether he likes it or not. Failure to timely disclaim timely is deemed acceptance of the property. Custodian should be providing 5498 to IRS each year in his name and TIN (typically SSN) showing the inherited IRA information. If he fails to provide a TIN, custodian would leave the TIN blank on the 5498. His failure to take his RMD is subject to the 50% excess accumulations tax starting in the year after the father's death. IRS can use the 5498 to figure this out - but often they don't. IRS would automatically waive this tax if he removes entire account balance by the end of the year containing the 5th anniversary of father's death. See 54.4972-2, A-7(b). Typically the IRA custodian cannot issue a distribution without it being requested by the owner. Probably will require custodian to escheat the funds to the state eventually (based on the criteria and timetable dictated by state law).

A "soloK plan" is a product with the fancy marketing moniker - are you asking if this would still be considered an owner-only plan with those ERISA exemptions and subject to 5500-EZ filing requirements? If CG, I think yes but, if MEP I'm not so sure. If not CG (yet), easy enough to get there by having one of them involved in the other's business in some minor fashion.

If not, it may be able to be permissively aggregated provided the union plan was subject to good faith bargaining AND contributions/benefits are comparable to the NU plan, T-7. I did not dig further to see if comparability was defined or explained. There was a BL discussion on this from 20 years ago that came up on Google search, but which didn't seem to reach consensus. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.416-1

If an Individual Retirement Account’s terms and administration allow a disclaimer (not all do), a custodian likely would recognize only a disclaimer that, besides meeting all conditions to be valid under a relevant State’s law, also meets all conditions to be recognized under Internal Revenue Code of 1986 § 2518. Among other conditions, the disclaimer document must be delivered to the IRA custodian no later than nine months after the date of the participant’s death (or the date the beneficiary attains age 21, whichever is later). 26 C.F.R. § 25.2518-2(c)(1) https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-26/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-25/subject-group-ECFRac39af22636eabc/section-25.2518-2#p-25.2518-2(c)(1). In the Internal Revenue Service’s view, an amount paid over to a State’s abandoned-property administrator is subject to Form 1099-R tax-information reporting and IRC § 3405 Federal income tax withholding (to the extent of an amount not previously so treated). Rev. Rul. 2020-24 https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rr-20-24.pdf Rev. Rul. 2019-19 https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rr-19-19.pdf Rev. Rul. 2018-17 https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rr-18-17.pdf The facts BruceM describes suggest the IRA custodian might treat the son as the person entitled to the unclaimed benefit. If so, and if the IRA custodian tax-reports, the Internal Revenue Service (and perhaps State and local tax authorities) might presume the son received income.

A State’s abandoned-property law often measures an abandonment period from when a retirement account became distributable. Even if an IRA’s custodian does not treat earlier events or facts as starting an abandonment period, a custodian might treat a beneficiary’s IRC § 401(a)(9) required beginning date as making his share distributable. I don’t know whether some IRA custodial agreements grant the custodian an administrative power to pay an unrequested, but required, distribution as a transfer to a non-IRA account with the custodian or its affiliate. Or perhaps some custodians interpret such a power as incidental to the custodianship’s minimum-distribution provision. Yet, it might be impractical to implement such a power if the custodian lacks enough information, including the taxpayer identification number, about the would-be beneficiary. If one’s curiosity is more than academic or intellectual, one might Read The Fabulous Document. But in my experience, a typical IRA custodial agreement is unlikely to state enough details to inform a reader about what the custodian will do in the situation described.