Leaderboard

Scenario 1 - you can correct the document restatement failures through EPCRS with a VCP filing and the late 5500s through the IRS late filer program for 5500-EZs. The Brokerage issue is probably tougher to correct but could likely be done as part of the VCP filing correcting the document failures and working with Pershing to re-register the accounts properly. Scenario 2 - I'm not sure as you have no Plan adopted. Perhaps someone else can chime in on that one. I feel like this has been addressed before in other threads so maybe a search of this website?

Then Bank should not have opened the account. Good grief. Did they use the corporate EIN or at least use the TIN? Likely nothing will happen, but it's stupid to me.

Agree this should be OK. I mean owner (company) could pay directly outside the plan so why not incur the entire cost to herself inside the plan? I can't see a DOL auditor insisting that the owner has to spread the fee to NHCEs as well, but one never does know what rigid irrational rule applications lurk in the minds of labor laborers!

That sounds like a nondiscriminatory manner, so it might be okay in the document/trust language.

As I understand the Plan in scenario has a document, it's just treated as individually designed and you can't rely on the opinion letter. So they are simply a non-amender.

For an explanation of some rules about holidays, see https://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/69147-6302021-5500-due-today-or-monday-the-18th/#comment-322161. If your client did not file Friday and files today, your BenefitsLink neighbors would welcome information about whether the government’s systems treat today’s filing as timely. As I mentioned in the other discussion, one might imagine the Labor department having set the software to follow a combination of Federal holidays and the tax-law rule, which looks also to a District of Columbia holiday.

Agree with above comments. Start by seeing if plan language permits non-spouse J&S beneficiary (with spouse's consent if there is one). Most traditional plans do. A J&S with 50% to the contingent beneficiary will satisfy the restrictions -- i.e., the "incidental benefit" requirements -- regardless of how much younger the non-spouse beneficiary is. For 100% continuance, non-spouse beneficiary may not be more than N years younger than participant, where N = 10 + number of years, if any, that the participant is younger than age 70 at commencement. So if participant is 65 then non-spouse beneficiary must be at least age 50 -- in other words, no more than 15 (= 10 + 5) years younger. For continuance %s between 50 and 100 you apply this same rule but replace the 10 by a larger value -- see table in the regs. Believe that for this rule you measure age at individual's birthday during year of commencement.

Also advisable to avoid confusing terminology. Whenever I've seen this option, it has been labeled something like "contingent annuitant option", to distinguish from the ERISA-defined "joint and survivor annuity".

Yes. The plan document should specifically say whether this is or is not permitted. If it is, as Effen alluded, there may be restrictions on the survivor percentage due to the minimum incidental death benefit rules of 401(a)(9).

Ananda, is your client considering limiting such a joint-and-survivor annuity to one that is the actuarial equivalent of the plan-provided annuity for the participant’s life alone?

You can have J&S options for non-spousal beneficiaries, but there are restrictions and adjustments based on the age differences. A good place to start would be Treasury Regulation section 1.401 (a)(9)-6)

If 2012-13-14-15-16 were five one-year Breaks in Service in a row, then I suspect the Plan Administrator did exactly what was supposed to happen. The agent won't question that - just let them know that the 100 percent refers to being vested in "the rest" of their balance after the forfeiture at the 5 BiS point.

The suspense account belongs to the plan unless and until the money in it actually reverts to the employer. The outcome will depend on the structure of the company sale and the benefits structure. If it's a stock sale, and the plan continues to be maintained after closing, the existing plan sponsor will continue to be the plan sponsor. If it's an asset sale, and the buyer assumes the plan, the suspense account remains with the plan. If the plan is terminated, the remaining suspense account must be allocated up to the 415 limits, with any excess reverting to the plan sponsor. The statute imposes the tax on a reversion on "the employer maintaining the plan" so if terminated pre-closing any reversion would seem to belong to the seller. A lot of variables.