Bird

I don't think being an ACAT has anything to do with it, at least not directly. I'm pretty sure, just about positive, that they won't ACAT unless the registrations are identical - " XYZ Company Profit Sharing Plan, Trustee Joe Johnson" for example. That by definition would mean it is a transfer within the same plan and not reportable. (So the ability to ACAT is more or less proof that it is a transfer within the plan, but the ACAT transfer itself is not the reason for the non-reporting.) If it's coming from an IRA to a plan, yes, the distributing IRA custodian will issue a 1099-R and it will need to be reported. Likewise if it is going from one plan to another plan. Even within the same plan, from one institution to another, it might be (incorrectly) reported and the easiest thing to do is just report it as a rollover. As noted the facts are unclear.

It sounds like this is an annuity that was not in pay status. So it generally functions much like any other investment, which means you should be able to roll it to an inherited IRA anywhere. Yes I think if you annuitized it the insurance company would be using their own assumptions, but once determined it would be guaranteed. (I don't think we are talking about a variable contract.) That would basically be locking in current low rates for life and doesn't seem like a very good idea to me... It doesn't make sense to me that they would say you could defer for 5 years but still have to take annual minimums. That's clue #2 that something is a little "off" with the options/advice (clue #1 being that it is coming from an insurance company).

I don't intend to be insulting, but it sounds like you have just enough info to be dangerous. Yes, it can be done, but... Combining a MP, SEP and 401(k) just doesn't make much sense to those of us in the business. You could get to exactly the same place in a 401(k), which allows for employer contributions up to 25% of pay and employee contributions up to the dollar limit ($17,500/$23,000 if over age 50). Having a bigger profit isn't really a driving force for adding a 401(k) since that doesn't add more in employer contributions. You know (?) that there is testing on 401(k) contributions...and you're giving everyone the same % in the MP and in the SEP?...and there are probably different eligibility requirements in the MP and in the SEP, so even though I just said "everyone" there might be some in the MP who are not in the SEP...?

For 1. we'd generally show loans on a cash basis. For 2. it sounds like a 2012 forfeiture to be forfeited in 2012 and reallocated in 2012 or used to reduce that contribution.

Most of the time it is easier/faster to get the statements and do it ourselves. In theory (and mostly in reality), we bill extra when needed.

Amen. And just for the record, I am supremely disappointed that ASPPA has not come out squarely against this nonsense. We (they) seem to be going along for political reasons and I think it's a mistake. Ed Snyder

P.S. We are steering people to daily valued platforms for most new business but still have a fair number of holdovers that are balance forward or individual brokerage accounts. FWIW.

"Don't you have anything better to do than this? Like write the statement regs that were required under PPA within 1 year (or was it 6 months)?"

We generally get copies of all statements sent directly to us and reconcile them - that is, go through every friggin' transaction and reconcile the cash account to the penny. We used to have all kinds of forms and whatnot that we used to ask clients about what happened during the year, but eventually learned that it's a lot better to just do it ourselves. (Consistent with my world view that pretty much everyone is a moron. I get a few pleasant surprises but it's better than constantly being disappointed.) The example I always cite to clients about why we insist on doing this is that once, $30,000 simply disappeared from a brokerage account. Because it was a managed account with a lot of activity, no one, and I mean no one (besides us) was aware of it. (It was transferred in error to another, unrelated account.) That's the only time something like that happened, but we are constantly correcting clients who tell us they contributed "x" when we see "y" being deposited.

I'm not reading the regs right now but I believe the key words are "not eligible for rollover." That doesn't mean it can't be rolled over, just that if it is rolled over, that the distributing custodian/trustee issues 2 1099-Rs, one for a rollover and one for a taxable distribution. Then the participant has to go to the receiving custodian and ask to have the (ineligible) money taken back out as an ineligible contribution. (NOT as a regular distribution because then they'll get another 1099-R showing it as taxable, again.) Our policy is that if we know it's not eligible at the time of distribution, we won't roll it over. But yes, it can retroactively become an ineligible rollover and then it becomes a reporting issue.

What about the 5500 reporting? I can see a client doing something like that without telling you, but not sure how it goes unnoticed when you prepare the tax return, if you're doing that. Anyway, if it hasn't been questioned by now (by the IRS) it seems unlikely it will be. No harm no foul as far as the missing 1099-R.

I don't think it matters who they came from, it's who owns them and where they came from (plan of the employer or not). And the participant/beneficiary owns them, and they came from a plan of the employer, so they are part of the part/bene's account for TH determination.

Maybe it's just me but I don't follow the scenario. Maybe if you gave the companies different names ("A" and "B") it would help, because from reading it, it seems like one company.

We don't file until assets are over $250K. I don't there could be any harm (penalty) for the non-filed form in your case, except for the likely hassle in explaining it.

I agree with everyone here, I think. The RMD is due and not eligible for rollover. If it is rolled over anyway, then there should be two 1099-Rs issued, one Code 7 for the RMD and one for the rollover, then the participant would have to take the money out, not as an RMD but as an ineligible contribution. But it sounds like the recordkeeper wouldn't be doing that (and they would be wrong). I'm concerned about them saying one thing now (all eligible for rollover, but the participant should take out the RMD from the IRA on his own), but later (properly) issuing the Code 7 1099-R; if the particapant takes out the money as they are instructing him; he'll be double-taxed. Long story short the recordkeeper should do it right!

So...how do you know the spouse is more than 10 years younger if you don't have that info?! Arguably, you've failed to comply with the terms of the plan (which directly or indirectly references that rule) if you use the Uniform Life Table when the spouse is more than 10 years younger, but I don't know that I'd be too worked up over it. It does seem you need to have some kind of caveat that goes with the calcs that says "but if your spouse is more than 10 years younger than you please provide a DOB so we can make the correct calculation."

That's pretty vague question, but deferral contributions are for the year the partner designates them for, so if they elect to make a 2012 contribution and deposit it in 2013, it's for 2012. They reduce taxable income for that year, but they don't affect what we (or at least I) call earned income which is the base for employer contributions.

No, as far as I know. Integration was permitted on the part of SS (5.7%) that went to retirement, so there was a certain logic to it. The medicare tax was carved out, so changes to it don't affect the retirement contribution rate and probably shouldn't affect what is now called Permitted Disparity.

Just curious, if you were going to use forfeitures to pay for 401(k) contributions, what would the employer do with the 401(k) money?! Obviously keep it, but in accounting terms, how would they reconcile their books? I think deferral contributions are "employer" contributions in a very narrow sense of the word, but not for this purpose.

A SEP is a vehicle to get money into an IRA. It's hard to imagine an investment that is permitted in a SEP-IRA but not a regular IRA. Anyway, I don't see why an account couldn't be opened but no new contributions made to it.

I heard that...maybe 5 or 10 years ago. I haven't seen any activity but that doesn't mean anything.

I think there is still a distinction between using a prototype and using a prototype that is sponsored. You can do the interim amendments and should be fine (and I have done that and will continue). But I think in a hypertechnical sense, if there is some flaw in the document, you don't have the umbrella of the FDL. (On the other hand, shERPA may be right about the remedial amendment period covering it, but I'm not sure.) Whatever risk there is is tiny, IMO. (So have you spent more time thinking about it and talking about it than just re-writing it yet? )

shERPA is spot on. No you can't do what is suggested, but it happens all the time.

I think it should be treated as a 2012 gain. Ultimately, it comes down to fair value, and the contract is worth the face amount immediately after death. Think of it in terms of what it could/should be sold for as of 12/31.

I think I would allocate the trailing gain pro-rata among the other participants, based on total balances. I would also re-think handling the investments this way. It sounds pretty awkward to me.