austin3515

Perhaps some 401k was deposited in January 2015 that was actually a 2015 contribution

It actually was well written and seemed factually accurate, even though I had the same thought as you.

As I often to say to Doctor clients "you incur more risk before noon each day" then we are talking about here...

"We have several without bonds that use a Trust Co as Trustee and have no direct access to the funds in the trust account." Come again? Corporate trustee = no fidelity bond requirement? I haven't ever heard of that exception before.

But as a practical matter, I'm sure the sponsor does not want to go to all that extra trouble, not to mention the service provider. If it was me, I would have faith in the recordkeeper. The requirement is NOT that the plan administrator have the documentation, only that the rules are complied with. Unlike Fidelity's position (which relies on employee self-certification) I think as long as SOMEONE has the support and verifying compliance you are in the clear. Odds are the recordkeepers record retention policies are better than the clients anyway.

I don't see any connection between the RMD and the 402g. He needed to take the RMD AND the 496 needs to be distributed. Now of course it will be taxed twice.

I said this too, but most of them have day jobs and max out there 401k.

Great write-up! I took out the phone # and web-site, but very informative post Perhaps you should add a signature line that references your Linked In page (settings, Signature)...

Also, how is the 1099-MISC reporting handled when an independent contractor participates? Presumably the taxable amount should be lower by their contributions, but because the contribution is vested they would need to pay the SE Taxes. I find a lot of articles that say "independent contractors can participate" but not a lot that delve into the details...

Independent Contractors can participate in a 457b. I thought I would find 100 articles about why it is great to have a 457b for Board Members paid as independent contractors but I found none. Am I missing something? It seems like an obvious use of this feature. Are people doing this?

"Failure to make any installment payment when due" That seems to include an installment due 12 months after a leave begins!

Participant was out on disability and hi loan payments were suspended for a year. The year was up 3/15/2015. Does the loan become incurable on 3/15/2015, or 6/30/2015 (i.e., the last day of the quarter following the quarter)?

Classic Derrin Watson: "Nobody owns the stock of a nonexistent corporation... It would be like marrying someone who died 5 years ago." Love it!! THANKS FOR POSTING!

no because it needs to be for expenses related to education received in the "next 12 months."

Key line from the PLR: I don't know why but I am still leery of this. I guess it is because it is "just" a PLR and the example is so vastly different than the one presented above. I guess the example above makes me wonder if this really is the same "concern" if not the same legal entity even though the two businesses might be in different industries.

ok, case closed, but that RMD means your participant is 104! Tell him to take the money and buy a new car, he deserves it!

Didn't seem very enlightening. I keep coming back to, "boy, if you're wrong..." I would be extremely uncomfortable without something in black and white. I sure would love to see what pages 183-187 of Derrin's who's the employer book has to say... But the poster did not tell us, nor did Derrin. Until then, I advise extreme caution!

Why isn't "within the plan year" a reasonable definition of the applicable time frame? Here is an example of the potential implications of not recognizing a controlled group. These employees have 5 years of service with old co. Old Co (a bowling alley) closes down, and now New Co (a pizza restaurant) is opened 3 months later and these 5 are hired. Are they all ineligible for the plan because the law does not require their service to be recognized? Are they all zero percent vested in any employer contributions? Are the old HCE's from old co now considered NHCE's? It would seem odd if the answers were all yes since they all work for the same guy.

Where does it say that?

Without a specific exception it sounds dangerous to conclude this is not a controlled group. I can't think of which criteria in the controlled group definition is not met merely because of a timing issue. Was there something in particular you were thinking of Belgarath?

The RMD is ineligible for rollover. The amount is not permitted to go to an IRA. So her account is $100,000. $97,500 can be rolled over and her RMD of 2,500 (no I did not look up the factor) is paid as a cash distribution. She may or may not be eligible to make a traditional IRA contribution in the amount of $2,500. Perhaps that will get you where you want to be.

correct, "sole plan of the employer" for the calendar year must be the SIMPLE. Employer is defined based on controlled group rules. So this is the same employer. But the original SIMPLE should still be in tact so keep using it. Your "new" employer is eligbile for that plan because the SIMPLE document incorporates that controlled group definition of employer. You're actually forbidden from even having 2 SIMPLE's in the plan year, so don't set up a new SIMPLE.

yes, the RMD is required. The RMD is delayed until the year of retirement., Now that the day has come she is longer exempt. The explanation is that she is due to take a 2015 RMD. If she rolls to the IRA without taking the RMD first, she will never take her 2015 RMD because the IRA RMD is determined (as in the 401k plan) based on the 12/31/2014 balance. And that figure in the IRA was zero.

of course scriveners error is where I was going. Thoughts on that?

401k Plan includes ONLY SH Match. The document provider compelted an amendment in November 2014 (effective 1/1/2015) to exclude bonus from calculating the match (calendar year plan). The Safe Harbor Notice correctly disclosed that bonus would be excluded. Come to find out that instead of checking the box in the Safe Harbor Match column, they check it in the Discretionary Match column. As noted there is no Discretionary match. I'm curious to know what the thoughts are in terms of issuing a clarifying amendment. I am struck by the notion that this is a discretionary amendment, so perhaps I have until the end of the year to perfect the amendment (i.e., move the checkmark)? If there was ever a case for a scriverner's error positon, I would have to assume this is it.