austin3515

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?

Thankl you masteff - I had missed or forgottern what you wrote earlier. So, would you agree that if a participant dies after payments begin and the beneficiary is the sole spouse, you should automatically tell the spouse/beneficiary to roll to an IRA and treat it as their own? Should this be like a "golden rule" of these types of rmd's.

But if she DID do that, does the table revert back to the uniform life? That's what I'm really struggling with, and yes it's a been a long RMD day for me. Seems everyone has had their own crazy situation...

I'm doing some more research on all of this and I'm fundung that a participant can roll their inherrited 401k into their an IRA and "treat it as their own." If this had been done, would she have been able to use the uniform life table as opposed to the single life table? What would have been the deadline for doing this? If the participant died over 2 years ago, would it still be an option?

But we're clear that when your spouse dies, your RMD's are essentially double what they would have been had he survived? So, my bigger question is, should I have told her roll over to an IRA? Or would the same rules apply?

5% owner dies after RBD (back in 2008), and his wife is the sole beneficiary. The wife is younger than the participant and as of December 31, 2010 is age 85. So do I go to the single life expectancy table and calcualte her minimum distriubtion as her 12/31/09 balance divided by 7.6?? Why is this factor SO much smaller than the regular RMD table which would call for a factor of 14.8??? Did I screw up by not telling her to roll to an IRA, where I presume she would have been subject to the regular rmd tables?