Leaderboard

Mr. Peabody and his pet boy Sherman can do anything!

No. Only distributions that would otherwise be eligible rollover distributions may be used to satisfy the RMD. See 1.401(a)(9)-5(g)(2)(ii).

As Artie M alludes to, often an investment-holding entity is designed and managed so it is not a trade or business, and so is not a part of the same employer as the entity’s investee. But if an investment entity has big-enough ownership interests in two or more operating companies, some of those operating portfolio companies might be one § 414(b)-(c)-(m)-(n)-(o) employer. Yet, those who arrange nonpublic investments often set the interests and relationships in ways designed to avoid common-control groups and affiliated-service groups even regarding investees.

Yes you can, meets the ACP exemption.

They should look at the Sun Capital cases.. can they fit within those limited non- trades or businesses? Otherwise, they might be able to use an investment from a parallel "fund" or another unrelated minority investor (which could include management rollovers).

Unfortunately, that series was discontinued in 2017, at the request of the author. The WaybackMachine does have archived content, dating from 2001 through 2017. (Obviously, that doesn't reflect any legislative or regulatory developments since then.) If you're not familiar with the WaybackMachine, it's an incredible resource maintained by a non-profit organization that has preserved not only web pages but other digital content for many years.

I don't have a cite handy. But you are right. Otherwise, participants could bypass the triggering event requirements via an in-plan conversion.

I think Lou is correct unless there is a special exmption for 403(b)s which I amnot aware of.

I believe it causes disqualification problems for the SIMPLE-IRA contributions in the years in which both Plans are maintained. The employer is not allowed to operate another Retirement Plan and I believe that includes 403(b) Plans. Though neither SIMPLE-IRA or 403(b) is the area I focus on so I could be wrong. But my understanding is the same as yours.

If plan is not on a recordkeeping platform, use PenChecks for plan distributions that require withholding

I cant imagine the right answer to the plan sponsor making a mistake is to force the rollover to be cashed out. Return the funds to where they came from, a Roth IRA. Thats the correction. And for something as straightforward as this I would argue it is an eligible inadvertent failure. I know the IRS gave some guidance o nwhat that means and I confess I did not read it before posting this, but by golly this has to fit in there.

The rules attempt to address the various combinations of plan document provisions and administrative policies, and the interplay of each combination with a participant's personal taxation. One scenario is where the plan doesn't have any provisions about allowing Roth catch-up contribution for a High Paid employee. The correction procedure in this scenario is to treat any amount that would be a catch-up contribution for the employee as an excess deferral using existing correction rules (e.g., timely refunding of the excess plus earnings). If the plan has provisions for deemed Roth catch-up election and the plan accepts a pre-tax elective deferrals in that should be treated as Roth, then the plan can use the new correction methods. One of the new correction methods says that the amount that needs to be treated as Roth can be put in a Roth account in the plan (applying the deemed election) and the amount is included on the employee's Form W-2 as Roth for the year. This has to be done before Form W-2 are issued and will require the plan informing payroll of the amounts. The other correction method says that the amount that needs to be treated as Roth can be put in a Roth account in the plan (applying the deemed election and treating the amount as an In-Plan Roth Rollover) and the amount is reported to the participant on a Form 1099R. Either correction must be made by April 15th. This is just an example of some of the rules. The rules also address scenarios such as treating amounts as catch-up after failed ADP testing (including the 6 month ADP test deadline for EACAs), 415 excess amounts, excess amounts over employer-provided limits (versus 402(g) limits). Getting all of this sorted out among payroll, recordkeepers, and High Paid participants by January 1, 2026 is going to be a major challenge. The IRS did what is could with Notice 2023-62 to delay implementation, but the IRS could not retract what Congress wrote into law. The motivation in Congress was meeting the law's overall revenue impact and was not based on the implications of implementing the law. In 2025, the burden now falls on service providers, plan sponsors, and participants to try to get this to work.