austin3515

I didn't read ALL of these threads, but personally I am allergic to other people's money. I want nothing to do with it. Therefore, the idea of receiving someone's check even for $500 makes me cringe. We see everything we need to before the loan is approved in the first place. Once the approvals are obtained, send the check right to the participant. Part of my feeling is based on my allergy, but the other more practical consideration is that interestdparty makes a reasonable complaint. Why is my money floating across the country to multiple parties which incresaes the chances for, at a minimum unnecessary delay, at a maximum loss of the check. I think theft is remote, but sure, why not? Are there not criminals out there?

hmmm... Now how the heck am I supposed to keep track of the basis? Somehow I need to know on my side that she has distributed some of her basis

Thanks!!!

If an amount is withdrawn under the 60 day rollover rule, must the "loan" be repaid to separate IRA or can it simply deposited to the originating IRA? It seems to me that the point of the rule is to allow you to move from one IRA custodian to another. Is there anything clear on this topic from the IRS or some other big time source (perhaps the large accounting firms)?

Helpful but not totally on point. Nothing addresses a partial distribution as a rollover to a Roth IRA. Do the basis recovery rules apply? The rollovers discussed only involve 100% closing of the Roth 401k account...

Participant is rolling a portion of her balance from her Roth 401k account to a Roth IRA. Do I transfer a ratable portion of the basis? I couldn't fid anything on tis scenario in the EOB. Can anyone point me to some literature?

I don't think changing the am schedule from bi-weekly to semi-monthly would be a refinancing. For example, we've had situations where payroll switches from bi-weekly to semi-monthly and we just reamortize to the "equivalent" payment. the ee's were notified of their new payment amount.

Having employees participate is not one of the requirements to maintain the exemption. In your example, there is still no top-heavy minimum due (Assuming no other contributions to the plan other than 401k/SH, AND assuming no split eligibility. As Tom was alluding to, the IRS might be very suspicious of you, so it makes sense to get signed declination forms from everyone (or at least most of them).

a) I don't believe that b) even if they didn't, it's only $150. c) if you polled 50 DOL auditors 2 would know that the 5330 does not apply. I like those odds...

Hey if it's always worked for me in the past I see no reason to change course... Now if the plan gets audited I can say, "Listen I just felt so awful I wanted to pay the $150 in taxes even though I overpaid by $100. Will you please forgive me for paying more taxes than I owed?? Please?"

My lord, if you need to hire a friggin ERISA Attorney to find out how to pay a $150 penalty, I don't even know what to say. Take it from me, file the 5330! No one will ever fault me, I guarantee it! And just so we are clear, a guarantee from Austin Powers on a public message board has no value whatsoever Regardless, I think it is extremely practical advice...

OK then, how do you pay this other penalty?

When the person is no longer engaged in a trade or business? And why would you file a Scheudle C with no income/expense? I'm not sure the plan necessarily needs to be terminated if there is no business anymore. That I think is an interesting question. I'd be curious to see what everyone else says... I have never heard of a "mandatory termination."

Just file the 5330, that's my advice... I've done them and it seems to me everyone would be happy. I can't imagine any DOL or IRS auditor would ever argue the point, and if you don't file it, you'll have a heck of a time teaching them!

You could also set up your own SIMPLE IRA and make up the difference to $18,000 in that plan. If you're 50, you ought to be able to get to a total of $24,000 between the two SIMPLEs (plus the SIMPLE IRA employer contribution of up to 3%).

Plan Trustee (and owner of a financial advisory firm) wants to give his employees investment advice. He wants to have one of his employees (a series 7 advisor) serve as the registered advisor. Is this possible? The payments would flow through the advisory firm itself but the employer would not take a cut, it would just be a pass through (because it has to go through the broker/dealer, etc). It seems to me that the Schedule C instructions refer to employees who receive wages for their services to the Plan. That is what we are going for here. Is this possible?

That's a brilliant idea!

I think an amendment is necessary to your position, which is that any changes to information that BENEFITS participants should be allowed. By your rationale an amendment changing vesting to immediate from 2/20 should be disallowed. To disallow such an amendment would be so far beyond the ridiculous it makes me lose my balance to think of it.

Hilarious!!

I dont think it matters, there can only be one annual calculation for the earned income individuals. Annual match, period. I do not see how this could be discriminatory either given the circumstances. They essentially have one pay-period.

Our prototype is clear, no Roth rollovers if Roth contributions are not allowed

OK, but if you're doing a 3% SHNEC in the ESOP, you cannot do a 6% PS for the HCE's in the 401(k) plan and claim that you pass 401a4. Agreed? I think that is what we all wanted to know.

The answer was no - an ESOP may NOT be permissively aggregated with any other plan. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.410(b)-7 ©(2) (2) ESOPs and non-ESOPs. The portion of a plan that is an ESOP and the portion of the plan that is not an ESOP are treated as separate plans for purposes of section 410(b), except as otherwise permitted under § 54.4975-11(e) of this Chapter.

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...

And so they are! Thanks!