Leaderboard

You may want to refer to Situation #4 in Rev. Ruling 2004-13 as it addresses the otherwise excludable employees and top heavy. You do not get the top heavy exemption since some employees who are eligible do not get the safe harbor non-elective. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rr-04-13.pdf Also - Starting in 2024 (plan years after 12/31/2023), SECURE 2.0 changed the OOE rules and top heavy and the otherwise excludable employees are not required to receive the top heavy minimum.

What about her purchasing his share of the home?

Yes, it was 26 years ago today that Austin (one of our message boards luminaries) burst upon the scene with the release of the first movie in the series.

I believe there is a pandemic of INSECURE 2.0.

Other than Bri's haha, no one else commented on your "laser" wit? Not even Austin? Must be they all had their mojo stolen! Is it (mini) me or are people's senses of humor just suffering a busy season hangover?

That was my thought Bill. If it was a straight refinance, it certainly would not qualify, but if the ownership of the property is changing from A & B to just A, then I think this is open to interpretation. Also, I would make sure any hardship distribution did not exceed half the value of the property. However, I think it is the Plan Administrator's decision on whether or not to interpret in that manner.

It seems this plan wanted to avoid all of the RMD rules around the first RMD payable by April 1st following the Distribution Calendar Year or allowing active non-owners the opportunity to defer payments until severance from service. As Peter noted, the plan can provide for an involuntary distribution based on a reaching the plan's normal retirement age. I work with a 401(k) plan that requires lump sum distributions be made to the participant when the participant reaches age 65. Essentially, there are no RMDs payable from the plan due to reaching age 70-1/2, or 72, or 73, or 75, or any other age past age 65. The plan also pays lump sum death benefits which pretty much means no RMDs are paid from the plan. Does this ESOP condition the payment based on the calendar year in which a participant reaches age 70-1/2 regardless of whether the participant is active or terminated? If yes, and the account is paid on the value of the stock appraisal (assuming it is not publicly traded) received in that year for the end of the prior year, there should be no problem making the payment timely during the year in which the participant reaches age 70-1/2. If the ESOP is making payments using the RMD calculations as a minimum, then a payment made before the participant reaches the RMD age for a year will not be an RMD. It would be an eligible rollover distribution.

Also, remember to add lost earnings to the missed match.