Leaderboard

If the distributee was not the beneficiary: A transfer of plan assets to a party in interest might be a prohibited transaction. ERISA § 406(a)(1)(D), 29 U.S.C. § 1106(a)(1)(D) https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:29%20section:1106%20edition:prelim)%20OR%20(granuleid:USC-prelim-title29-section1106)&f=treesort&edition=prelim&num=0&jumpTo=true Was the aunt a party in interest? Unless the aunt was the employer’s employee or had some connection to the plan or the employer, the aunt might not have been a party in interest. ERISA § 3(14), 29 U.S.C. § 1002(14) https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:29%20section:1002%20edition:prelim)%20OR%20(granuleid:USC-prelim-title29-section1002)&f=treesort&edition=prelim&num=0&jumpTo=true This is not advice to anyone.

Sounds like there's no "cash" to begin with.

Agree with Peter. Even if you don't have a PT you could have an operational defect. If the aunt was sole beneficiary to the estate, no harm no foul maybe but Plan Administrator needs to get all the facts (not to mention follow the terms of the Plan).

File the Form 5500 and in Part I B check the box that the filing is an amended return/report. EFAST2 tracks Plan Sponsor EIN, Plan Number and Plan Year of all filings, and the most recent amended filing should supersede any prior filings.

I may be conservative on this, but I always advised clients that if a business owner took a loan from the plan with the intention of loaning those funds back to the plan sponsor, and then immediately did loan the money to the company, the IRS would have a very strong case to claim that this was an indirect loan to the plan sponsor which is a prohibited transaction. At a minimum, the business owner (after taking the loan from the plan) should loan a different amount at a different time and under different repayment terms if trying to establish that these two transactions were independent and totally separate.

Assuming they're QBs, I think that can be unilaterally done at any point because it would be one QB independently ending their coverage, while the other QBs maintain their independent election rights. That was my point above. As to how it practically occurs, that will probably vary from plan to plan (or more realistically, TPA to TPA). The formal QB notice requirements in the COBRA regs surround the requirements upon divorce/legal separation, loss of dependent status, second qualifying events, disability determinations, etc. Notice of voluntarily dropping mid-maximum coverage period doesn't seem to be addressed. Any reasonable requirement that the QB notify the plan of the change in coverage I would think suffice. Clearly there will have to be some form of notice for the plan to know that a) it's not just a premium shortfall situation, and b) which QBs are maintaining coverage.

Generally, when a Cash Balance plan is adopted, the Profit Sharing plan should provide (or amended to provide) that there is no End of Year employment requirement ..... because it usually better (cheaper) to provide staff benefits in the PS plan. .... Jeff

That's how I see it. And remember the MRC needs to be funded in cash. I would think that even the IRS bought the "memo" argument they might challenge the MRC as being in the form of a Promissory Note instead of a cash contribution. Just another argument for having a clean paper trail of events.

Seems to me there should be one standard that we're all using to decide if our clients have to spend $20,000 on an audit. Man I hope someone clarifies this... I feel like ARA or ASPPA needs to get an opinion. Without clarity I take the very reasonable position of whatever is best for my client. Shameful the the DOL did not realize that this was an obvious question to be answered.

Assuming he's 100% vested (same really applies if less), then typically he would get 100% of whatever was in the account when it was liquidated and sent. So he did get earnings whenever it was processed. And I don't believe that the brokerage firm wasn't able to see what the participant was invested in at the time. Not that it really matters, but they're saying they can't run a report from X date to liquidation? Please.