Bird

I'm not sure it's foolproof but that's pretty much how it would go.

No. You could use 0 or 1 and then change it.

Yes, it can definitely be the same plan. It wouldn't be the first time a vendor has confused the terms new "account" and new "plan." Sometimes there are magic words that make the confusion go away; with Fidelity and I think Vanguard, if you say you want to a open a "non-prototype account" (meaning not their prototype) they will in fact open a new account; otherwise they're geared to write a new plan.

No. I meant it is ok, subject to the DOL rules that the original poster appears to be aware of.

Electronic delivery is ok.

This might be a little above my pay grade, but while I agree that "definitely determinable" is effectively a joke, that doesn't mean that you can ignore it. That is, they threw in the towel a long time ago on "everyone is in their own group." At least the groups are definitely determinable. I would not use classifications that are not absolutely positively clear-cut and therefore potentially subject to interpretation. "Full time" and "part time" might appear to be obvious under the current circumstances, but what if they hire someone on an hourly basis who works 7 hours a day...7.5...8? "Salaried" and "hourly" are better, but I wouldn't use them. I'd take the easy way out and put everyone in their own group and then just decide to give all of the people you/they determine to be "full time" the percentage allocation you/they want, and give the "part time" person whatever you/they want.

Good point(s), thanks.

Can a participant name a debtor as a beneficiary (assume spousal consent is not a problem)? Or is that effectively using the plan as collateral?

Well, I don't think it follows that because the plan says that loans must be repaid through payroll deduction, that you can't make a loan to someone who is an active participant but not on payroll. If he meets all of the conditions for receiving a loan, then you do the best you can to accommodate repayments. (And I don't think repayment methodology should be in the AA, fwiw.)

I'd definitely use the new name/# so it matches the actual filed return. (If I remember, that is...)

I used to use this: Circular 230 disclosure: The information in this communication is not intended to be, nor can it be, used by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties. I was going to just remove the intro "Circular 230 disclosure:" and then decided to drop the whole thing. It's silly and the IRS recognized that it's silly and there is no need for it, at all.

That's what I think. The cited reference says "The IRS National Office noted that it would [my emphasis] issue a technical advice memorandum permitting a corrective amendment..."

Much as it might seem logical, I would not do it. I can't speak for how the IRS would view it but I don't see it in the category of "no big deal."

I would rely on it if it supports my position, otherwise say that it's not really the law. Seriously, if it clarifies something that is completely muddled, then I think it is helpful. But I do think, in this case, that guidance since then has been clear enough. I think if the original schedule calls for a payment more than 5 years after the issue date, that it's problematic.

I think trying to read the tea leaves of a 32 year old Blue Book written by some obscure staffer is a little much. Buried in that same paragraph of the blue book is something that says if any amount of a loan is outstanding at the end of the 5 year period, it is treated as distributed. I've always wondered why some people said that (I think it is...well, dumb) but at least now I know there was some kind of basis for it. I think we have more than enough guidance since then to have this non-legislative commentary be effectively superseded. FWIW, I also found the part of the proposed response in the ABA Q&A to be, I don't know, amusing. What, exactly, is so difficult about setting up an amortization schedule that completes payments within 5 years of the issue date? Somebody was trying to bluff the IRS and they didn't buy it. Proposed Response: Yes. It is virtually impossible to make payments over the required five-year period if the period commences on the date the participant receives the loan funds. We agree with the statement in the “Blue Book” for TEFRA that says: “If there are required periodic payments, the first of which is due to be made within two months of the date the loan is made, then [the] five-year repayment period will be measured by the due date of the first payment.”

The regs say loans must have level payments, at least quarterly. "At least quarterly" to me means, well, every three months, and I don't see how that could be interpreted so the first one isn't within 3 months of the effective date.

Sounds like getting the money will not prevent eviction, just let him get another place. No dice. I read the SH definitions very literally. As a side remark, I don't see how his ability to make payments 6 months from now has anything to do with it.

Whoa/back up. Receiving "salary" may not be the technically correct way for an LLC owner (taxed as a partnership or sole proprietorship) to report compensation, but it is quite common - CPAs seem to like it because withholding can be done through the salary/payroll system rather than with quarterly payments. (Actually, LLCs can file as partnerships or corporations and we don't know which is elected so maybe it's not even technically wrong.) Either way, nobody (i.e. the government) cares, as long as taxes are paid. I doubt any correction is needed.

So if that payment is not made by 9/30, the end of the following calendar quarter, it defaults. Since loans must be amortized (i.e. level payments) on at least a quarterly basis, I don't know how you could start any later. Amortized quarterly over 5 years means level, quarterly payments. How could you start on 9/15 or whenever and pay off the loan within 5 years with level quarterly payments? (Actually, re-reading it, the loan was made on 2/15. I'm not sure how you have the first payment on 6/15 and not 5/15.)

I would have the owner of the company sign everything, even if the company no longer exists, on the premise that it's a trailing function (I just made that up...meaning an obligation that needed to be done at the time of dissolution). Unless there is an "issue", no one should question it.

As ESOP Guy notes, if by some highly unusual and rare event, someone wanted an annuity, you just buy it from an insurance company. That assumes someone (the TPA) is preparing option election forms that actually offer the annuity option; it sounds like the vendor can't do it. Back to the original point, you absolutely positively cannot remove the J&S annuity from MP assets.

Plan language probably says something like "distribution is based on last valuation date" so if you had an interim val on 7/31 that is the last valuation date - for everyone.

I don't see a problem with making the loan, as long as the business is in operation at the time. The question is, is she going to discontinue the plan in the near future, and if so, the loan will become taxable, assuming she can't pay it off then - why bother, and not just terminate the plan and be done with it/take whatever money she needs as a lump sum?

I'm with Kevin C on this; we reconcile statements and make sure that our calculated cash balance = actual cash balance. (Except for a handful of managed accounts where our fees to reconcile would be insane, and they sign off that it's not part of our job.) We found a $30,000 erroneous transfer out of an account one time where we were the only ones who knew about it.

In 2012, I received my renewal letter with card, dated 11/30. If my notes are correct, I submitted everything in May. I do recall something about the renewal submission period ending in June, but the enrollment expires Sept 30. I did make a mistake on mine causing a delay...I think you'll get something around Oct 1.