austin3515

Who is your document provider? We use Corbel, and it's right in the "trustee" section. "Isn't the person/entity choosing the investment platform every bit as responsible as the trustee would be?" The fiduciary is responsible, and I suppose you could let the courts sort all that out if it ever came to it. If it were me, I would prefer to not be a "trustee" anyway. Especially in a larger organization where it might not be so easy to pick that special someone

Any other takers on this? I'm considering making it standard policy in our office to indicate that the plan is exempt from the trust requirement because it is funded exclusively w/ insurance contracts (Great West, John Hancock, etc). For whatever reason we have always insisted on trustees (not that it was ever questioned!)

Cool, so we are on the same page. Thanks everyone!

So in other words, you don't think the plan administrator of a 403b plan has to do anything at all with respect to RMD's other than process them upon the request of the participant? This rule is suggesting that an IRA custodoian must actually calculate the amount of the RMD required and report that to the participant, but even this is not required of a 403b plan. Is that what you are suggesting?

I think I'm convinced (the web page is a bit more clear than the instructions), but it is still annoying as all heck that they just don't put down in simple straight forward terms, if your SS# ends in a 4, you need to renew between 4/1/14 and 6/30/14. It's almost as though they intentionally set out to make it sound more complicated than it really is. It's bazaar, really, when you think about it.

If your social ends in a 4, when the heck is my reporting due? I think it's 4/1/2014, but whoever wrote the instructions for the 8554-EP should really buy into the KISS principle. Why can't they just say "if you're social ends in a 4, your filing is due between 4/1/14 and 6/30/14"?

(7) Application to multiple contracts for an employee . The required minimum distribution must be separately determined for each section 403(b) contract of an employee. However, because, as provided in paragraph (e)(2) of this section, the distribution rules in section 401(a)(9) apply to section 403(b) contracts in accordance with the provisions in § 1.408-8, the required minimum distribution from one section 403(b) contract of an employee is permitted to be distributed from another section 403(b) contract in order to satisfy section 401(a)(9). Thus, as provided in § 1.408-8, A-9, with respect to IRAs, the required minimum distribution amount from each contract is then totaled and the total minimum distribution taken from any one or more of the individual section 403(b) contracts. However, consistent with the rules in § 1.408-8, A-9, only amounts in section 403(b) contracts that an individual holds as an employee may be aggregated. Amounts in section 403(b) contracts that an individual holds as a beneficiary of the same decedent may be aggregated, but such amounts may not be aggregated with amounts held in section 403(b) contracts that the individual holds as the employee or as the beneficiary of another decedent. Distributions from section 403(b) contracts do not satisfy the minimum distribution requirements for IRAs, nor do distributions from IRAs satisfy the minimum distribution requirements for section 403(b) contracts. To me, the reference to 408 makes it clear that this is an individual requirement? It sounds like you disagree but it isn't that at least a reasonable interpretation?

Best practice is a lot different than a requirement. I have a client with 30 people over the age of 70.5 - to obtain that level of assurance is something I would need to bill for, or they would need allocate resources towards, both of which are not easy to come by. Is there a reg site you can present that conveys an obligation of the sponsor to take action with respect to RMD's? I'm not saying I don't think there is one, I'm just looking to understand what I need to be doing.

You are responding as though the participant aggregating accounts of the same employer. My understanding is that the participant can aggregate the accounts of multiple past/present employers and take the total RMD's from any one of those accounts.

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?