I am not sure how to interpret the VCP fee chart. The plan has 52 participants.

There is only 1 participant affected. More than 5% owner, still working, age 80. Plan has never distributed any RMDs.

Is the fee $2,500 PLUS $500 for the 401(a)(9) failure? Or is it just $500?

The title basically says it all. Can a plan that does not allow Roth Deferrals allow Roth Rollover into the plan or is that not permitted?

High blood pressure is one of the most prevalent health problems in America. However, I have determined that the main cause of this epidemic is NOT, in fact, due to obesity, sodium, etc.

No, the real problem is that when you have an appointment at the doctor’s office at a given time, you are invariably ushered in late. This, in and of itself, is annoying but not unduly so. Where it gets bad is that you are then ushered into an examination room, so you think, “Aha, finally getting somewhere.” Instead, you then wait for anywhere from 45 minutes to 6 months before the doctor actually comes in for your SCHEDULED appointment. At this point, you are so mad that your blood pressure is likely to show that a stroke is imminent.

So, the cure is simple, and will save Medicare billions. Instead of medication, just make sure the damned physicians get you in on time!

I have seen some variations of this topic, but not my specific question. I have a client that is a partnership. The partners receive draws (at same time as the other employees' pay period) of which they each elect to defer a flat dollar of each draw. No problems there. The plan also has a discretionary match determined per pay. They calculate the match off the draw amount for the partners which I understand isn't technically "compensation". Each of the partners' actual plan compensation at year end (based off their K-1 self-employed income) is higher than their total draws for the year. So theoretically they could have received more match. Are they REQUIRED to do a true-up depositing the additional funds or are they permitted to just leave what was deposited throughout the year? I know if they deferred or match TOO MUCH, that would have to be corrected. But I wasn't sure about the other way around - if it was truly required to deposit additional money. In this particular instance, the partners would prefer not to deposit the extra $ to their own accounts.

For the year in which a sole proprietor dies, can the surviving spouse and/or executor of the estate step in and make a SEP contribution on behalf of the deceased owner/participant based on earned income for that year? I think the answer is yes, because the SEP is an employer-sponsored plan, and the spouse/executor is acting to wind down the business, which may include making SEP contributions.

I also have the same question regarding a SIMPLE Plan. Here, I think the answer is no, since the election to defer would have to be made by the owner/participant, and not by a third-party.

Dentist client is taking RMDs from the Plan. The Plan holds 17 Krugerrands (market valued) and "100 Silver Dollars" (valued at spot silver prices).

If Dentist were to take distribution of this gold and silver as part of his RMD, the remaining assets could be rolled to a generic IRA and the Plan terminated.

The "market value" is less than the RMD amount.

The question is "How do we establish that the assets have changed hands from the Plan to the Participant?" Appraisal? 1099-R filing?. I'd like to make sure the Dentist is credited with taking the full amount of the RMD (some cash plus the gold and silver).

Let's say the plan is cross-tested and the owners want to max out and give themselves the profit sharing contribution that will bring them to the 415 limit. The plan gives a 3% Safe Harbor non-elective contribution as well.

However, there is an allocation condition (have to be employed on last day of the plan year to receive an allocation) on the regular profit sharing contribution. A few people were terminated during the year and while they receive the Safe Harbor non-elective, they are not entitled to the regular profit sharing because they didn't meet the allocation condition. Because they don't receive the regular profit sharing contribution, the plan fails to allocate the minimum gateway.

My question is this: can the document be retroactively amended in 2015 in order to remove the allocation condition and allow all the employees to receive the regular profit sharing contribution?

Can you set up a profit sharing only plan (not 401k) in the same year that a SIMPLE plan exists? I know you can't have a 401k and SIMPLE in the same year but I was wondering if it made a difference if the second plan was employer only contributions?

Thanks

We have a profit sharing plan for a physician who is now a W-2 employee for a medical group.

The plan has 2 employees who can not be found.

The "investment advisor" has "advised" the client that as a sole proprietor, whether she has any Schedule C or not, she can keep the plan open; but if she were a corp the plan had to be terminated.

Part of your fiduciary responsibility as a retirement plan sponsor is reviewing and benchmarking your plan. The Plan Sponsor Council of America has been providing the most comprehensive plan benchmarking data for nearly 60 years. Plans sponsors can get the data they need for free by participating in the survey. Respondents receive a copy of the report which contains 180 tables of data on the latest trends in DC plans including:

• Plan participation and deferral rates
• Average employer contribution rates and contribution formulas
• Number and type of investment options offered
• Investment monitoring policies and procedures and investment advice
• Participant education and communication
• Plan design features including Roth, loans, hardship withdrawals, and more
• Automatic enrollment and escalation features
• Plan administration practices

Visit www.psca.org/58th_AS for more information.

1.72(p)-1, Q&A #9 outlines the requirements to avoid a deemed distribution when a participant returns from a non-military leave of absence. There are two options (#1) re-amortize the loan (possibly with higher payments, but never with lower payments) in order to payoff the loan before the 5-year term, or (#2) re-start repayment at the old payment amount AND a "balloon-payment" (my terminology) of the full balance on or before the end of the 5-year term.

My question is on option #2. What if the Pan Administrator allows option #2, and the participant gets to the end of the 5-year term and cannot make the final balloon payment? Obviously, a deemed distribution has occurred. But, WHEN did it occur and WHAT is the taxable amount?

My reading is that option #2 requires TWO things to occur to avoid a deemed distribution: re-start payments and make a balloon payment. Without both, I think the default date and amount goes all the way back to the "cure period", last day of the quarter following the quarter in which the first payment was missed. (The other possibility would be the value of the loan at the end of the 5-year term, because we were attempting to comply with Q&A #9, meaning basically that the balloon payment itself becomes the default amount). Of course, if the default goes back to the end of the cure period, we have a big mess on our hands and EPCRS kicks in. I guess I'm not sure how much good-faith can be used to assume that a participant will actually make a balloon payment?

Plan document states that profit sharing formula is cross -tested. However, in fact employer can't pass cross testing so employer is allocating contribution pro-rata compensation - not cross tested. Employer also allocates a safe harbor nonelective contribution. Typically, the gateway requirement would kick in. However, must I give the gateway in this case since the plan didn't actually use cross testing, even though the document shows cross-tested allocation? Thanks!

Small non-profit has all its money at Vanguard. Previously took the position that it was non-ERISA b/c deferral only. But because the additional cost is minimal and because there are limited investment options, we are suggesting just to do the 5500's and treat as an ERISA plan. I think this is consistent with the DOL's analysis which takes into account the participants ability to choose from multiple vendors.

So let's say we decide to change the status. Effective date of plan is 1/1/2000, and 2015 is the first year we will file (forget about 2014 and the extension, it would just be a distraction).

We check the first report box. Then what happens? Anyone done this? It seems like the DOL should be sympathetic here...

Anyone have any cites for how to determine if two mutual insurance companies would be part of the same controlled group? Do the non-profit controlled group rules come into play (same board, etc)?

a participant took a small loan for a period of 18 months. weekly payments are $20. However, the participant has been working very little due to various health issues. Her checks are spotty and have been minimal. Can the plan sponsor take out multiple payments on a single payroll to make up for weeks when she did not earn a check?

A plan went through a partial plan termination where several participants had their partially-vested amounts become 100% vested. Some of these individuals have recently been rehired and the question is how to show their vesting - continue with their actual partially vested percentages using the plan's 2/20 vesting schedule, or must you maintain their vesting at 100% due to the partial termination? The doc has the standard rule of parity language regarding exclusion of certain vesting YOS for rehires but does not address this situation. Thanks in advance for all help.

US citizen lives in the UK and has earned income there. We know that her income is also taxed in the US, with a credit for the UK taxes.

If she has a UK pension (or profit sharing) plan, is that deductible in the US? I guess the question is when completing the Sch C in the US is the pension contribution in the UK deductible in the US calculation/Sch C?

For deceased participant who died before receiving benefits, if a plan has a default beneficiary for an unmarried participant for children under 21, am I correct in thinking that this refers to the age of the child at the time of the participant's death?

If so, where is the support for that?

Fact pattern: involves an Irrevocable Trust that was named the beneficiary of an IRA. The Trust does not hold other assets. The IRA owner died in 2004 prior to the attainment of age 50 and the sole beneficiary of the Trust is the decedents child age 23 in 2005. The child was to receive benefits received by the Trust from the IRA during their lifetime. The child had the right upon death by will or general testamentary power of appointment to designate someone other than an individual to receive any amount remaining in the IRA upon death. Thus there is a question of whether the child qualifies as a “Designated Beneficiary.”

In sum, the questions;

1. Because the child, as beneficiary of the trust, has/had general testamentary power of appointment to designate someone other than an individual/person to receive any amount from the IRA in the event of their death does this disqualify them as a “Designated Beneficiary” and therefore the 5 year payout rule would apply?

1. Are there any circumstances under which a primary designated beneficiary has the right to name a secondary beneficiary who is not an individual and still be considered a “Designated Beneficiary?”

We have a Safe Harbor plan that does not currently allow for In-Service distributions. The owner needs to take money out of his plan in order to help his business and be able to maintain the 401k plan. If he won't amend the document, he will have to terminate the plan.

I've read a lot about amending the Safe Harbor plan mid-year and because in-service distribution amendment was not on the list of allowable amendments, which leads me to believe that this amendment is not allowed. However, I've also heard people on here comment that amendments like that should be allowed for a Safe Harbor plan and the whole restriction was not meant to be an exhaustive list of all possible amendments.

What is your opinion? Do you think the owner should be able to amend the plan mid-year?