this report is intended to pull the info for min distribution due by 12/31/2011 (or 4/1/2012)

under report writer you would run the report from 1/1/2010 - 12/31/2010

and select All Plans.

I ran it first thing in the morning before anyone else was on the system, took around 1/2 hour to pull the data from every plan. (A single report for each plan that has a possible min distrib)

It doesn't do DB, though it will pull cash balance, but I doubt the amounts it pulls would be correct. That is a side effect.

I have a few new takeovers, since its the first year on the system (2011) I ran the report on those plans from 1/1/2011 - 1/1/2011 just to pull the begin bal (which of course = the 12/31/2010) and that worked fine as well.

as with any report it's a use at own risk, though I did compare the results to what Relius would pull. this report doesn't pull people with 0 balance like Relius, etc. but otherwise it did pull the same people, so it appears to be working.

this report is actually a modifed version of the crystal report for 70 1/2, but it pulls more than the balance, it calculates the min distrib, so its sort of a combo between the crystal report and rthe standard report.

what I don't like about the min distrib report from Relius (the standard report from Processing/Plan Maintence) is

it will not necessaerily pull correct balances and I'm too lazy to go through each and every plan to run the following (per their instructions):

The Set Trade Date Fields process (Processing/Balance Update/Set Trade Date Fields) is one way to update the beginning balance trade date fields in the Acctbal table. This process can only be run on a plan basis. It cannot be run for a single employee, or for more than one plan/plan year at a time. To figure out which plan year you would need to run this process for, to get correct balances for a particular plan/distribution year, see other FAQs under "70½..." topic.

This report is hardcoded to take 12/31/2011 - DOB, so it is designed for 2011 only

Is there a Participant Statement requirement for those Participants who are entered as a Code D on a 2009 8955 – SSA Form?

Has anyone seen any quidance on which participants are required to be reported on the Form 8955-SSA for 403(b) plans? Should I report

A) 2008 and later terminations

B) 2005 and later terminations

C) All terminated participants with vested balances, as they have not been reported yet?

Thanks for any responses.

A client has passed away and had an account balance in a qualified defined contribution plan and IRA. He named his daughter as beneficiary of both, a Canadian non-resident alien. Can she elect to rollover the dc plan benefit to a US Rollover IRA and can she establish a US Inherited IRA for the IRA? If so, free of any income tax? Thanks.

A few Private Letter Rulings seem to indirectly address the treatment of nonqualified plans in community property states (benefits are divided 50% between spouses and community property laws apply because ERISA does not govern nonqualified plans). But I have not found any ruling or case law that directly supports this. 1. Is my assumption correct, and 2. Has anyone come across on point case law/guidance on this?

A few Private Letter Rulings seem to indirectly address the treatment of nonqualified plans in community property states (benefits are divided 50% between spouses and community property laws apply and not ERISA). But I have not found any ruling or case law that directly supports this. Can anyone assist?

A one participant plan started a ps and mpp plan in the mid 80's. Our company (a TPA) was engaged to prepare the documents for the plans. This is years before I took over the company. Administration (5500 EZ) was handled by his CPA. Recently his plans were audited by the IRS. He has not been making contrbutions to the MPP plan in years and his CPA failed to terminate that plan when it was no longer necessary to have two plans. So I believe the trigger to the audit was that he was filing EZ's on his MPP and reporting "0" contributions for several years. Anyway, upon review the IRS slapped him with a $25K penalty for failure to restate his plans. Ultimately they were able to negotiate that down to $4k penalty for each plan plus his CPA is charging him $1500. He is wanting my company to pay for the penalties. I nicely told him I am sorry, but I can not do that. Our files were shredded a couple of years ago and the only correspondence he has from our office is dated December 1986 when the plans were set up. I explained that ultimately he is the plan sponsor and is responsible for maintaining the tax qualified status of his plans. His CPA worked on the plan annually and did the admin and that he should approach him for relief. I have worked for my company since 1994, took over it after the death of the president in 2000 and have never done any work for this man. My employee has worked for us since 1989 and she does not recall ever doing work on the plan either. We clearly were brought in to provide document services only. Generally in the past when we only provide document services and its time for restatement, we would send out a letter to clients advising them of this and to make certain that they wanted us to still provide this service. However, with no files, I can not prove that was ever done. Personally, I don't think anything will happen, but if should I get a call from his attorney, I would just forward it to a local ERISA attorney I know.

Any thoughts on this matter?

Do we think that anyone will use the new statutory exemption [ERISA § 408(b)(14) and 408(g)] for an eligible investment advice arrangement?

The Labor department says that the 2006 Act provision “did not invalidate or otherwise affect prior guidance of the Department relating to investment advice[,] and that such guidance continues to represent the views of the Department.”

Either the “new” exemption or the “old law” uses the same two ideas to manage a conflict: leveling compensation, or using a person independent of the conflict to make the advice.

The key difference seems to be that the statutory exemption requires an independent audit and some extra conditions not in the earlier guidance.

For a business that wants to render investment advice to participants, isn’t following the “prior guidance” good enough?

Why would a business prefer the statutory exemption?

C Corp is owned by 2 people. These 2 people receive W-2 wages and also 1099 wages as independent contractors.

Can they use the 1099 wages from C Corp to fund a SEP established under the S Corp (which is owned and operated by 1 of the 2 people)? Would it be permissible for just the 1 common owner to both the C & S corp?

A participant has a loan set up with quarterly repayments. They would like to pay off the outstanding balance as of 12/1/2011. The prior repayment was made on 9/30/2011, and the next is due 12/31/2011. My thinking was that a daily interest calculation needs to be done to calculate the payoff amount at a date other than a date that shows on the amortization schedule - to calculate the additional interest accrued from 10/1 to 12/1. But others I speak to seem to think this is not required, and that the payoff balance at any date from 10/1 to 12/31 is the amount that shows up on the amortization schedule as the outstanding balance after the 9/30 payment was made.

Most vendors with a daily platform (ING, Hancock, Hartford, etc.) calculate interest on loans daily. It wouldnt make sense just because this loan is through a vendor without a daily platform, that the interest is calculated differenty.

Is there any guidance on this issue? Must it be done one way or the other?

I received my ERPA designation on 10-8-2010, with expiration date of 9-30-2013.

Is the 9-30-2013 date the date by which I need to submit my CPE credits?

Thanks.

Just want to see if I'm missing something here. An employer with an EIN ending in "5" has a custom DB. To me, that means either he had to restate by 1/31/11, or complete an 8905 by 1/31/11, and then restate into a prototype or VS by 4/30/2012.

Am I missing something? Thanks.

This seems pretty straightforward to me, but I would feel better getting confirmation from others in the industry. A plan has been getting income as a result of a Revenue Sharing Agreement with their TPA. They have set up a separate account to receive the income and have used the account to pay administrative expenses. However, the assets now exceed the amount of the expenses, so I'm thinking they should simply allocate whatever's left over to plan participants, probably on a per capita basis. They should probably do that at the end of every year. Sound reasonable?

I have a plan that satisfies safe-harbor by employer nonelective contributions. Due to a reorganization of the employer next year it is looking like the plan will need to terminate during the year next year and not at the end of the year. It is clear that we could not qualify the mid-year termination as a substantial business hardship and it is very uncertain whether the transaction would fit under 410(b)(6)©. As I read the regs and the proposed regs, a safe-harbor nonelective contribution plan cannot terminate mid-year unless it is due to substantial business hardship or 410(b)(6)©. This is not the case if we satisfied safe-harbor via matching contributions. See 1.401(k)-3(g). This makes no sense but I don't read the regs any other way. Does anyone have any thoughts on my ability to do this or on alternative approaches? Thanks.

had an advisor call and ask whether splitting a plan on eligibility would then create 2 plans (hourly vs salaried) would lower count and avoid audit requirement. My thought is no does not void requirement. the "plan" would still be under audit requirement because ownership plan document etc, among other reasons. I could not find a direct comfirmation any help. Found answer ignore please

Hopefully someone can provide some input on this issue.... New Company is acquiring substantially all of the assets of Old Company in an asset deal. New Company will continue Old Company's business and will continue to employ substantially all of Old COmpany's employees. Old Company will cease to exist after the deal closes on Nov. 30. Old COmpany has a SIMPLE IRA for its employees that New Company intends to continue "as-is." Does New company need to set up a new SIMPLE plan with the same FI? Or can it just assume the old plan? any thoughts are greatly appreciated as I'm not finding much guidance and we're on a very tight timeframe.

Upon termination, can you roll a 457 into an IRA & defer taxes?

Thx

We inherited a 401(k) plan (had been a profit sharing plan for years) where only the company owner has whole life insurance as part of his account balance. Apparently none of the other 7 participants had ever been offered insurance. The agent now wants to offer policies to the 7 participants. However, he wants to offer term policies. Is this possible? Would this not be a discrimination issue since the owner has whole life and employees would have term?

Thanks.

Any opinions out there regarding Question 13 on the 5300 - the option to apply for a determination on coverage? Is there really a major benefit in getting this determination?

At an IRS phone forum in mid-September, they talked about discontinuing the optional determination for coverage/nondiscrimination anyway.

Curious how others handle this question.

Sole propr maintains a db and 401k plan. he wants to temrinae the db plan. due to some asset gains the amount of asssets in the db is higher than his 415 maximum lump sum. can he roll the difference into his 401k plan, which is not terminating, and take a distribution of the 415 max, without any penalty?