austin3515

Got a TIAA Traditional, TIAA Real Estate, both clearly on th group annuity contract side (403b1). What aobut the CREF side of it? Is that considered 403b7 becauise it is mutuial funds? Or is still under 403b1 b/c it is offerend through a group annuity contract? Of course, this results in different availability of in-service distriubtions dpeending on where you monry is invested, whcih seems ridiculous under one platform. But is that the case?

"I’m assuming that the “correct” way is to simply amend the filing, attach the audit, and re-submit." That's right "Can I even submit under DFVC if the client already submitted?" No, DFVC is for never-filed returns. Not sure what would be cheaper than amending which is free. I don't think you'll see any penalties related to this - never heard of them being assessed in the past (well, maybe I recall one story of one time from somoene on these boards?). But I wouldn't worry too much especially considering your only late by a month.

Check out this recent thread... http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=46961

"Why is a loan from a TIAA annuity contract any different than a loan from a trusteed plan? " Ironically, the rest of your post goes on to describe precisely how it is different. But I do appreciate your explanation, which finally has shed some light on this for me!

Ouch. First let me state that I know it is not a PT, I just don't know why. TIAA is a party-in-interest as the custodian and as a service provider, so the loan is a transaction with a party-in-interest. I assume there is an exemption somewhere? But I was never comfortable with the fact that while in general participants (or at least the plan as a whole) would reap the benefits of the participant's interest, in this case it is TIAA that profits. You mention the cost to the participant is 2% - another way of putting it is that the income to TIAA is 2%. And then if the participant defaults, TIAA would garnish that portion of the participants interest in the Traditional account, which would be the seeming violation of the anti-assignment rule. So don't make it sound like this is "plain vanilla" where there is clearly something more complicated going on.

From your keyboard to the DOL's ears. How this is not a PT I will never know, but what I do know is that this is how they all work (other insuracne companies do it too). And what's more, the auditors all signed off on this as not being a PT. Soimeone explained it to me one day.

Asked and answered... §1.410(a)-7. Elapsed time (ii) A plan using the elapsed time method of crediting service for one or more classifications of employees covered under the plan may use the general method of crediting service set forth in 29 CFR §2530.200b-2 or any of the equivalencies set forth in 29 CFR §2530.200b-3 for other classifications of employees, provided that such classifications are reasonable and are consistently applied. Thus, for example, a plan may provide that part-time employees are credited under the general method of crediting service set forth in 29 CFR §2530.200b-2 and full-time employees are credited under the elapsed time method. A classification, however, will not be deemed to be reasonable or consistently applied if such classification is designed with an intent to preclude an employee or employees from attaining his or her statutory entitlement with respect to eligibility to participate, vesting or benefit accrual. For example, a classification applied so that any full-time employee credited with less than 1,000 hours of service during a given 12-consecutive-month period would be considered part-time and subject to the general method of crediting service rather than the elapsed time method would not be reasonable.

Your problem is that you understand and you care, which makes you especially unsuited for 403(b) plan work. That's great... Out of curiosity, are you aware that the TIAA loans are structured such that TIAA is lending the money - not the Plan? The participant is simply required to put money in the TIAA traditional account as collateral.

Can a plan use elapsed for individuals for whom hours are not tracked, and counting hours for individuals for whom hours are tracked? Or must a plan select an eligibitlity service credititing method and stick with it? So for example, if hours are not tracked for salaried people, is the only option to use the equivalencies? A site specifically suggesting consistency is required would be perfect...

TRying to fill out a Crobel 403b "prototype" and strugglng with the interest rate section. Does everyone agree that the Plan Administrator is NOT setting the loan interest rate? Technically, TIAA is loaning the participant the money. I'm just curious what people's thoughts are on this matter...

very Very VERY Because it gives more contribiutions to the people over the wage base, which is usually the owners/key empoloyees.

I think the poster was referrig to a client, not his/her actual employer.

How about emailing the auditor every month and ccing the client, asking how the process is going, just want to be proactive to avoid the last minute rush - is there anyhting you can do, etc. Just a thought... That would force the auditor to respond...

OIn that insnane calcualtion I'm pretty well versed, and have a template that "knows the rules," but thank you for point that out!

Got a plan with just one HCE. Plan is a 6/30 year end. For the Plan Year 6/30/2010, the ADP test is failing. The HCE will be age 50 in December 2010. He did not defer more than 16,500 in the first 6 months of 2010 (but of course he could have!). Can he have his deferrals reclassed as catch-up contribtions? I believe the answer should be yes, but please confirm!

Because the regs distinguish between hardships from Custodial Accounts and annuity contracts, what would TIAA be? Most auditors were reporting the CREF funds as mutual funds, and not separate accounts - does that mean they are custodial accounts not eligible for hardship (with respect to employer money)?

Our software makles us put a zero in the general account line item, if we have a schedule a. It just won;t take null in that field. This assumes of course that there is nothing in the gneral account (i.e., fixed interest accounts).

I guess like anything else, the less you deal with something, the more complicated it is. But I will say there do seem to be a lot of rules that appear at first glance to apply to the exact same situation (5 year rule, life expectancy, special rules for spouses, the list goes on).

How I wish that was true... I can't seem to get my hands around these rmd's right around the date of death... So the play here then is 1) leave in the plan for 4 years OR roll to an inherrited IRA for 4 Years (electing the 5 year rule) 2) Roll to an IRA and elect to treat it as her own to switch back to the uniform life? I guess that was the conclusion in the last thread, it just seems like such a loophole...

We elected the "5 Yeear Rule" in the adoption agreement for RMD's after death, but before distributions begin. Participant dies, spouse is sole designated beneficiary. Particiapnt turned 70.5 in 2009 which was the year of death. So a) Does the 5 year rule apply, because he died before his distriubtions began? OR b) Will the beneficiary (who is basically the same age) be required to begin taking distributions by 12/31/2010 (12/31 following end of year of death). I know the participant can roll it to an IRA, etc.,, but before she rolls it over, the question is do I need to do an RMD using the single life table.

Got a primary residence loan where the orignal term was 15 years. Currently, the loan will be fully repaid in 6 years. Is there any reason that this loan cannot be refinanced into a signle loan, repaid in 5 years, together with receiving additional proceeds of $X? Great West is saying we can't., but I don't believe them!

I would make the extension to the first business day following the extended due date, and file by that date. In this case, that would be the Tuesday after MLK day.

It's not a bonus. It's paid time off.

Check out this IRS web-page which I have found to be VERY well done and informativ. And Masteff is right (as if this obvious fact needs to be restated http://www.irs.gov/retirement/participant/...=188232,00.html

I keep telling my wife that an international man of mystery can't be tied down in this way, but she's still not buying it... OK, here's a doozy: Participant dies at the age of 69. Plan uses the 5 year year. Spouse is same age as participant and waits 4 years before closing the account. Is the spouse now able to roll it to her "own IRA" and essentially skip out on 3 years of RMD's? Anyone have a good recommendation for a book just on RMD's?