austin3515

What are TPA's doing regarding RMD's for 403b plans (perhaps TIAA in particular). Because a participant can take the RMD from any of the 403b accounts held by a participant, it is basically impossible to say with certainty whether or not the RMD rules have been complied with. TIAA apparently just sends out a letter on the date they turn 70.5, but that is it.

If you recall, last year, the Schedule H report was grossed up for the defaulted loans (not the offset ones). This change was made because to exclude the amounts from the TIAA Traditional account would be understating the plan's investment. But the participant level reports did NOT include those balances. The difference was summarized in a supplemental investment report (regarding defaulted loans). In 2012, they have now reported those defaulted loans as transfers in to the Plan on the participant detail report and zeroed out the defaulted loan investment on that report. And now, there is no way for me to report investments net of loans treated as deemed distributions, which I am supposed to do. If you work with TIAA a lot then I suppose you know what I am talking about. IF you're an innocent bystander reading this post, stay the heck away from TIAA. It's like the Twilight Zone.

Anyone have a rational explanation for the changes TIAA made to how they are reporting defaulted loans? They're driving me nuts with this topic

There was a time when I would have said the same (up until this morning), but I think Masteff is onto something. What do other people think? I actually believe I have heard this interpretation before. Sort like a "deemed refinancing."

Because what you are saying is this is REALLY a refinancing transaction? We don't qualify for a refinanced new 5 year term. He's eligible for a 2nd loan of $10,000 - we wanted to take that loan, pay down the "bad loan" such that the payments involved are more manageable. When I read the Q&A you sited, in particular in the examples, they are referring more to a true refinancing. Has the IRS ever indicated, perhaps in a Q&A, that if loan proceeds are taken as a cash check, but cash is then used to pay off the original loan, that this is a refinancing transaction? I suppose I can see the point that this would be an effective way to circumvent the rules on refinancing. Perhaps, as you suggest, that is why they worded it the way that they did. Curious to know if this interpretation is solidified anywhere though.

Participant took a loan out in 2010 and the repayments were so small they did not even cover interest (new client, mind you ). Does anyone have a problem with the participant taking out a second loan to get "caught up" on the old loan as part of the correction? We're doing a VCP submission to ask for tax relief (the participant got a letter from the IRS b/c the old recordkeeper sent out a 1099 defaulting the loan). Purely reamortizing the loan does not work because the participant would not be able to "survive" on what would remain in their net paycheck. So we want to pay-down part of the loan with a new loan. Making a lump-sum catch-up payment is clearly provided for in EPCRS, but what they don't address is whether or not a new loan might be used to come up with the lump-sum payment.

But for ha ha's it does say "hardships are NOT permitted from a participant's QNEC account (including any 401k Safe Harbor Contributions)." But COULD the document permit it?

Forget about what the document says - is it legal for the document to say this is OK?

Participant is age 62. Plan does not allow for any in-service distributions other than hardships. Is the Safe Harbor Nonelective / Match money available?

Interesting... So let's say there are 5 non-union ee's, and the highest paid of the 5 made $120,000, but the highest union employee made $125,000, the non-union plan can skip the ADP test because there are no HCE's, correct? The union plan has to run its test of course.

Is there a veru good technical wrtite-up anywhere of those counting methods and the calculation of the penalty amount? For a staffing agency, the details are critical. Everyrhing I've seen is very broad.

If I meet the requirements to exclude union employees when determining the top-paid group, how do I determine which union employees are HCE's (assuming they are over 115K)?

Sometimes I forget my secret identity has an ocean's worth of jokes... Hilarious...

What is a mini-med?

I wonder if the general consensus will be to pay the penalty?

Does anyone have a good write-up of what a temporary agency needs to be concerned with in order to comply with ACA? ACA seems to impact them in a wholly unusual manner. Have the "big boys" (Manpower, Kelly) come out with anything about what their intentions are?

Once upon a time I had heard that if a 401k plan has loans, it had to have a trust/trustee to "hold" the loans. Is this true? Or can any plan funded exclusively by insurance contracts claim exemption from the Trust Requirement?

Sometimes it pays to read the regs directly (not usually, just sometimes!) 2520.104b-1 Disclosure. © Disclosure through electronic media. (i) (A) Results in actual receipt of transmitted information (e.g., using return-receipt or notice of undelivered electronic mail features, conducting periodic reviews or surveys to confirm receipt of the transmitted information); and So emailing is fine, as long as you get confirmation of undeliverables. So assuming emailing over Company networks, it is not necessary to get return receipts and cross-reference listings to ensure everyone got it. You only need to track down the undeliverables.

Believe it or not, the insurance company had submitted this arrangement to the IRS and request (and received) a favorable PLR.

Would you mind explaining how these documents either support or refute my conclusions? It seems to me that the first two articles appear to deal with investment vehicles that might be offered to both 403b and 401a plans, but honestly it's very difficult to decipher.

§1.403(b)-8 Funding. (f) Combining assets. To the extent permitted by the Commissioner in revenue rulings, notices, or other guidance published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin (see §601.601(d)(2)(ii)(b) of this chapter), trust assets held under a custodial account and trust assets held under a retirement income account, as described in §1.403(b)-9(a)(6), may be invested in a group trust with trust assets held under a qualified plan or individual retirement plan. For this purpose, a trust includes a custodial account that is treated as a trust under section 401(f). Anyone have any thoughts on this? My situation relates to insurance contracts. Why not mention insurance contracts here?

Where could I get a copy of that letter ruling?

Am I correct that a 401(k) Plan and a 403(b) plan cannot be invested under the same insurance contract? I have one issue in particular which is that the 401(k) Plan has a trustee? Combining all the assets in one investment contract and recordkeeping the source separately would not be sufficient, correct?

Hilarious, I'll grant you that, but I have a legitimate reasonable question from a conscientious client who just wants to know what they need to do to comply with the electronic deliveries...

I guess what it comes down to is, what is the definition of "actual receipt." It certainly would seem that having the email show up in their in box should meet this criteria. I suppose another interprepration is that they actually OPENED the email. How is it that a basic interpretation of what this means on a practical level is not provided anywhere? We're left to guess what it is the DOL actually means here. Does anyone have anything except speculation to offer here??