Is it legal to own precious metals in a solo -k?

How about an IRA?

If not, can anyone give me an idea where to find the regulation or law?

401(k) participant directed plan allows participants to have a Self Directed Brokerage Account with the custodian.

Question;

Does the Trust file the 990 T for any Unrealed business taxable income (UBTI) resulting from all self directed brokerage accounts. For example ther are 75 SDBA, and 5 have UBTI, are the accounts aggregated and one 990T is filed? If the taxation is in excess of $1,000 who pays tax? the Plan or the participants whose accounts were reported?

Never worked with UBTI before, and the particiapnts/administrator are getting letters from the platform about these investments and potential taxation.

thanks

An employer has a 401(a) plan with a pick-up of 4% of compensation and also has a 457(b) plan. An employee makes $50,000, so $2,000 will be picked up and contributed to the 401(a) plan. The employee is deferring 10% of compensation. Do you take 10% of $50,000 or $48,000? Is this dependent on the 457(b) plan's definition of compensation? I think no matter what the plan's definition of contribution compensation is it would be $48,000 because pick-up contributions are considered employer contributions.

Can you please confirm this. Thank you.

When we got our 2015 census data for Client M, they mentioned that they have leased employees that started with them in late 2014 and are still employed. It seems that they meet the requirements of 414(n) at this point so they are considered "leased employees".

The plan has a six-month eligibility for 401(k). If we're supposed to count service back to the original date of hire, do we have a missed deferral opportunity? It seems like we shouldn't, since they weren't eligible as of that date. My thought is that we count them as eligible as soon as they meet the criteria to be counted as a leased employee.

Thoughts? Thanks.

I have a QUADRO already filed with the courts some years ago and I am the

named alternate payee, and according to the QUADR0 have the same rights

to information as the participant, but the company will never give them to me,

nor will they answer any letters. I have sent them to the Plan Administrator.

I have also provided the Plan Administrator with a copy of the QUADRO.

This was a very large supermarket chain in the Northeast. Thank you for

your help.

Company with Volume Submitter document (adopted prior to 1/1/2016) amended the document after 1/1/2016 and, as a result of the amendment, it no longer has Volume Submitter status. It can no longer rely on its 3/31/2008 VS opinion letter and is therefore an individually designed plan.

Notice 2016-3 states that sponsors of individually designed plans now have until 4/30/2017 to adopt a pre-approved plan, but also states that employers who adopted pre-approved plans prior to 1/1/2016 continue to only have until 4/30/2016 to restate their plans.

If the company wishes to regain VS status for its plan document by restating the plan onto another VS document, what is the deadline by which the plan document must be restated? Is it 4/30/2016 (because it previously adopted a pre-approved plan prior to 1/1/2016)? Or 4/30/2017 (because its previously adopted pre-approved plan is now an individually designed plan)?

After sitting on the requested information for months, (in one case over a year) I now have 4 DOL investigators who are demanding information between March 11 and March 15. Has anyone heard if one of their new regulatory agenda items is killing TPAs?

Detail: New plan to us in 2015. Plan has been in existence for decades. Safe Harbor 3% with Cross tested design. The employer was "told" that the division he purchased in 2006 could be excluded and everything would be fine. The excluded division was discussed in some manner at the sales process. I was not there, I don't know all the details. I got the privilege to try to sort out mess. Employer would like to keep division excluded if possible. (It's not)

Well fast forward to 2016 and 2015 testing. I have all the census information and sure enough, it won't pass 410b coverage. The excluded division is killing the numbers.

Hide sight would have been to not bring the whole division, but to have them meet eligibility and treat like any other division; knowing that coverage was going to be an issue and several of the employees would never be eligible.

I need some direction.

Thanks!

I have an employee who's wife left him and moved back to Mexico and, of course, now he wants to remove her from his benefits. They are not legally divorced yet. We are in Texas and there is no legal separation in this state. But, he says they're going to be legally separated in Mexico prior to being divorced (in Mexico).

My question is whether or not a life event currently exists. I know one will exist once he's divorced or legally separated but he's wanting to drop her now. Changes in lawful immigration status can be a life event to enroll in coverage under the new ACA rules, but I can't find anything on the opposite situation.

Does anyone know if a spouse moving out of the country could possibly be considered a life event to allow him to drop her from his plans? I've never run into this particular scenario before and not really sure how to proceed...

If an employer needs / desires to limit number of participants in a newly designed disease management program providing benefits to employees diagnosed with heart disease or hypertension, could the employer:

1. Limit participation in the program to a maximum number of participants at any one time on a "first come, first served" basis such that not all similarly situated employees (i.e., employees diagnosed with hypertension or heart disease) are treated the same?

2. Impose a minimum age requirement (e.g., 50+) as a way of further concentrating the benefits of the program [or further limiting eligibility]?

If there is an issue under ADEA or otherwise with excluding some otherwise eligible participants based solely on age (e.g., employees aged 40-49), could you possibly address the ADEA issue by dropping the minimum age down to 40 such that you were still favoring older employees (reverse discrimination?) but not excluding anybody 40+ protected by the ADEA?

Thanks

I have a participant whose only W2 wages for 2016 are going to be auto reimbursements but wants to defer into the 401(k) Plan. Since no 'paycheck' is actually issued or going to be issued, any idea how the logistics of deferring into the plan would work?

Just curious, anything on this or it's just fine.

I know the general fees have changed (generally reduced) under Rev. Proc. 2016-8. But, have the special fees indicated on the last 9-2015 8951 remained the same?

Thanks.

Eligibility for plan is 1 year, age 21 and 1/1 and 7/1 entry dates.

Participant started working on 1/20/2014. She had her one year of service on 1/19/2015. terminated 5/29/2015 before her entry date of 7/1/2015. She was rehired on 12/28/2015. Since the participant met the eligibility requirements before she was terminated, does she enter the plan on her rehire date? Plan is FT. Wm non-standardized. She had 1,000 hours in 2014 and 1,000 hours in 2015.

If she does enter on 12/28/2015, her comp from 12/28/2015 to 12/31/2015 will be considered 2016 comp and is on her 2016 W-2. so she would have zero comp for that period. Plan is safe harbor with a 3% SH non-elective contribution and additional profit sharing contribution. Plan is also top heavy, would she get a top heavy minimum contribution on her wages from 1/1/2015 to 5/29/2015, her date of termination? And no safe harbor for 2015 since she had no comp for the period after her rehire date?

Can someone provide me with the regulations that states that after-tax contributions that are matched need to restricted prior to distribution.

A state wants to provide a health FSA for employees. State law requires that the state cannot pay for it and that all admin fees must be passed on to employees. What is the tax-treatment of the costs that are passed onto the employees?

401(k) with 3% nonelective that goes to everyone and cross tested profit share allocation. profit share has last day rule but those receiving the 3% SHNEC would normally be bumped up to the gateway if necessary.

The employer is not putting in a substantial profit share for 2015 and as a result everyone (HCE and NHCE) is getting the same allocation percentage. Therefore It won't be necessary to perform nondiscrimination testing.

Since each person ends up with the same percentage can those who termed but received SHNEC be excluded from the profit share as they would, for example, under a comp to comp profit share allocation, as long as coverage passes?

This seems as though the answer should be obvious but am in a busy season fog.....

Does anyone know that if an amended filing if it replaces the original or would you be able to see both versions?

Governmental 457(b) plans are not subject to 415©(1)(A) defined contribution limitation. Governmental 401(a) plans are subject to the limitation. For the governmental 401(a) limits test do you include deferrals made to the employer's 457(b) plan? I don't think so. Can you please provide a site.

Thanks!!

I have a plan where a participant took a 5-year loan in 2015 and dropped back to part-time effective January 2016. At this point he is not terminated due to the part-time/on-call nature of his position so the loan is not officially due and payable per the loan policy. Since his paychecks are sometimes very small, his net pay is not often high enough to cover the loan repayment (or results in a very high percentage of his paycheck). The plan only allows for one loan and, while the policy allows for refinancing, his original loan was for the full 5 years so we can't refinance to extend the life of the loan beyond the original term. Should the payroll department be withholding as much as they can (even if it results in a $0 take-home check)? Or at what point does the employer determine that he's actually terminated and then rehired upon the next time he is accruing a paycheck (and the loan would therefore be due and payable and therefore defaulted upon)? Thanks for your input!