Owner of company is deceased; wife wants to rollover his money to her IRA. This is permissible, is it not? (Just double checking)

Employer X maintains group health plans for its employees. For 2015, it chose to offer affordable coverage providing minimum value to 70% of its otherwise eligible full-time employees, choosing reasonable classifications to exclude as part of the 30%. X applies the look-back measurement method for purposes of determining the amount of any penalties under Code Section 4980H. For 2016, X is extending coverage to the other 30% due to its awareness that the rule requires it to offer coverage to 95% of its otherwise full-time employees. For purposes of applying 4980H to 2016, would the newly eligible ongoing full-time employees, how would Employer X treat them? Are they treated as newly eligible full-time employees, even though they are in fact ongoing employees? Or would it not be able to do anything but treat them as ongoing full-time employees since 4980H is applied on an ALEM by ALEM basis?

I would be most interested in getting your thoughts on this. Thank you.

The Plan was amended in mid-2015 to allow one employee to enter the Plan early. The employee was described as a newly employed employee and not a Highly -Compensated Employee. Now in 2016 it is discovered the new employee is a spouse of a Key Employee (they have different last names).. We need to correct as the new employee made 401k and received matching contributions during 2015. I believe this is a Demographic Failure requiring VCP, not SCP. Has anyone had a similar problem?

We have a plan that improperly calculated participant entry dates for a small subset of employees. The miscalculation essentially pushed back each participant's entry date from the correct date until the next entry date six months later. For example, participants eligible on January 1, 2014, were not enrolled until July 1, 2014. The error was just recently discovered.

I'd like to use the reduced 25% QNEC under Rev. Proc. 2015-28 because we're still within the "greater than three months but less than two years" period for many of the affected employees. However, the safe harbor requirements include notifying the affected participants "not later than 45 days after the date on which correct deferrals begin."

Read literally, if the normal plan entry process started "correct deferrals" on, say, July 1, 2014, we would have had to notify the participant within 45 days after their plan entry date, which we obviously cannot do (and couldn't have done).

Interested to hear thoughts on whether we should still aim for a 25% QNEC and give notice within 45 days of discovering/correcting the error? I get that the reduced QNEC is supposed to provide an incentive to self-correct errors early, but we're still within the eligibility window, we just didn't realize at the time of plan entry it was a "correction."

A participant took a partial distribution from a Roth 401(k) account in 2015 and it was a qualified distribution. The 1099r instructions state that box 5 can exceed box 1. If box 5 included all contributions (less any basis previously distributed) and the participant took another distribution in 2016, what would be in box 5 for the 2016 Form 1099r?

Does anyone have a good earning calculation worksheet? The one I'm using if definitely faulty, as it is showing me a greater loss than what the account earned over the year. For example, I have 100 loss in the account, but the spreadsheet is using 106 loss overall.

I used to have a good one in a previous job, that that has been lost to posterity.

I was approached by a business owner (no other EEs) with a solo-k plan that he started about a year ago. The plan doc was setup by a plan administrator "specializing" in self-directed IRAs/solo-ks. The business owner was instructed by the admin official to go to his bank (he recommended a specific, large bank that I won't mention), and open up a checking account under the business's EIN, and make contributions, rollovers, and transactions through that account. He did as instructed, made an indirect rollover contribution via check, made a contribution for the year, and started purchasing non traditional assets (real estate to be specific).

Am I mistaken in that this MUST be a trust account with a separate TIN? I have consulted many other experts and other banks, and the general concensus (with a couple exceptions, particularly the admin who told him to setup the account in this way) is that this cannot be a qualified account. Is there such a thing as a "custodial" account setup through a bank that can serve in this manner? I'm getting some contradictory information from different sources that this MAY be considered proper by the IRS.

Any insight would be GREATLY appreciated.

I was wondering if anyone has a sample RFP for Cash Balance Plan vendors which would include questions regarding establishing the plan (design, education) and ongoing administration (fiduciary responsibility, testing, actuarial, reporting, record keeping, and money management).

Who are the larger vendors in this field besides Kravitz?

Thanks!

Does anyone know when, and if, Treasury and/or the IRS are going to issue regulations and/or guidance for new Code Section 414(z), which permits plan-to-plan transfers between church 403(b) and 401(a) plans?

In the meantime, can we move ahead based on a reasonable interpretation of the statutory language only?

Thanks very much for your help.

Participant was supposed to be auto-enrolled 4/1/2014 but was not.

Participant self-enrolled in June 2014.

Between June and December Participant deferred the 402g limit.

Is this person still due a QNEC?

I don't find anything specific in the Rev Proc other than "failure to timely implement", which this was, so I think he is due the QNEC.

Thanks for any insight/help.

Just wondering - when submitting form 5300 for Cycle E, are you submitting new IRS reference lists that are encouraged but optional? They don't seem particularly useful - most of the items seem to be N/A, either not applying to the DB plan I am submitting or not requiring an amendment at all for anyone.

Same sex couple. We all agree, they are a spouse for everything now, attribution, HCE definition, etc etc.

Correct?

I have a plan that excludes bonus and should not have withheld on a bonus payroll but they did and submitted the 401k and match for a few participants. Since this money does not belong in the plan and the 2015 books have closed distributions for the excess amount have to be distributed and match forfeited. What 1099 code should be used?

From FT William:

Note: Due to annual IRS FIRE site maintenance, if you are using our fulfillment service, your batch must be in "Pending" status by 12pm CST on 12/10/2015. Batches submitted between 12/10/2015 and 1/18/2016, will be queued for submission once the IRS FIRE site maintenance is completed.

Has the IRS mentioned whther or not late filing penalties will not apply during this period? We have some that are due on 1/15/2016.

After three straight months of reminding and calling we still had 2 clients with 2016 safe harbor contribution language in their prototype plan document who did not choose to sign their PPA 06 restated plan documents before December 31, 2015. As the restatements could have contained desired changes (had they responded before November 30th) they are no longer able to have those changes in 2016.

We still need to restate these documents for PPA 06. If it were allowed, we would like to restate the entire PPA 06 Adoption Agreement effective January 1, 2017 with the desired changes. From everything I've read it appears we can only rely on the EGTRRA IRS opinion letter through April 30, 2016 so I suspect the answer is no. If no, we will have to create a PPA 06 restated document with no changes from EGTRRA to be effective retroactive January 1, 2016 and any prospective changes for 2017 could be made via amendment. Those amendments and SMMs are just so untidy!

Question: Is the deadline of April 30, 2016 for signing the PPA 06 restatement or for the effective date of the PPA 06 restatement?

I'm working with a new client who has the following allocation groups defined in the adoption agreement - HCE Managers, HCE Non-managers (spouses), and Staff.

In the past they've not given the spouse group the Nonelective Safe Harbor contribution or any profit sharing.

Can you really exclude a group from the Safe Harbor Nonelective contribution? I thought everyone had to get the Safe Harbor.

Thanks

Would welcome any general thoughts on an unusual (at least in my experience) variation on providing employees cash to opt out or waive group health plan coverage:

Here are basic facts: large employer had a division whose employees were eligible to participate in company's group health plan. The division, however, is comprised of mostly younger workers in competitive field, many of whom desire cash more than healthcare coverage. Employer established program whereby employees were basically told in writing the amount of compensation they would receive for the upcoming year if they waived participation in the group health plan and the amount they would receive if they participated. In this case, all in division were told they would receive roughly $12,000 less per year if they participated. (For example, employee would be told their compensation would be $65,000 if they waived or $53,000 if they participated.) This $12,000 amount was roughly equal to full annual cost of family coverage but the amount was applied to employees electing employee-only coverage as well assuming that a single employee could potentially trip into family coverage later.

Surprisingly, some employees elected to participate in the plan, including some single employees electing employee-only coverage. As a result, these single employees effectively ended up paying more than twice what employee-only coverage generally cost under the plan,

Questions / issues:

1. Although the employer had a cafeteria plan in place to cover other pre-tax deductions, the waiver / opt out arrangement appears to have been handled outside the cafeteria plan as more of a salary negotiation process rather than a cash-out election under the cafeteria plan--i.e., for those electing coverage, the employer just treated their gross pay as $12,000 less than they otherwise would have for the year and never reflected the higher potential salary amount except as part of the initial waiver notice. Appears the cafeteria plan does not expressly contemplate a cash-out right and the waiver was not run through the cafeteria plan in any event. This seems like a clear constructive receipt tax concern whereby those electing coverage might still be thought to have constructive receipt of the full $12,000 in forgone salary. Does that seem correct? Anybody see potential to treat this as a legitimate cash-out under the cafeteria plan even though it was not handled as a cafeteria plan cash-out?

2. Apart from cafeteria plan issues, do you think the size of the reduction for those seeking employee-only coverage was so large it was tantamount to basically excluding them from the plan or, in essence, forcing them to opt out? (Obviously some elected to participate so that cuts against the argument for some but for those at lower income levels the choice might not have been a real choice at all.) Could that be viewed as interfering with their right to participate in plan giving rise to potential ERISA Section 510 claims?

3. My real question--do you think the fact that the employer has essentially applied a salary reduction twice the size of actual cost of employee-only coverage gives rise to ERISA exclusive benefit and prohibited transaction issues? (They did not technically deduct and hold twice the cost of coverage from paychecks but, in essence, one could argue that since the employer benefited by never having to pay the additional amount out as salary.)

Large employer overall so I'm sure there are a host of ACA issues / ramifications with all of this as well but am just trying to get handle on more basic potential tax and ERISA prohibited transaction issues at this stage.

Ihave a plan that failed ACP for 12/31/14 and never did refunds. So, now we are in SCP and have two options: QNEC to fix test or refunds and a 1-to-1 QNEC in the amount of the refunds. My questions:

EPCRS says: For purposes of this section .03, employees who would have received a matching contribution had they made elective deferrals must be counted as eligible employees for the ACP test, and the plan must satisfy the ACP test.

Does that mean all eligible people in the ACP test gets the QNEC? Or can I limit it to just the people who had match?

If a plan chooses to do ACP refunds and a 1-to-1 QNEC, is there still an excise tax due because of the late distribution of the refunds? This is a 12/31/14 PYE.

And same question: does the QNEC go to all eligibles under ACP, or only the deferrers? (I think I made that last word up)

Company A is acquired in a stock purchase July 2015. Company A sponsored a safe harbor 401k plan.

Company X is the acquiring company and maintains a non safe harbor 401k plan.

After the purchase, Company X discovers historical compliance concerns with Company A's plan. Company X wants nothing to do with the assets of Company A's plan and does not want to merge the plans at a future date. Company X wants to terminate Company A's plan immediately under the premise of terminating a safe harbor mid year based on a business acquisition/change in ownership.

I have searched the EOB, but my question is this: since the termination is happening after the acquisition is final, are there any concerns with terminating this plan and allowing a distributable event to all employees under Company A's plan?

Thank you

A health plan terminated effective Dec. 31 and its members all joined a new health plan on January 1. A participant went into the hospital on December 30 and was discharged on January 2. What plan is responsible for those charges? And why?

Thank you.