Bird

But an estate is not eligible to do a direct rollover, so there is no mandatory WH.

I think they are still plan assets while the employer is holding the money (that's why it is a prohibited transaction, except for tax withholding money).

Ultimately this boils down to he said/she said. You can't prove that you did not get the notice and your employer can't prove that you did (unless s/he had you sign something saying you did, which is unlikely). Your best shot at getting anything is if you never signed a form at all saying that you did not want to contribute. From the assets and the recent contributions, it sounds like the company made some large contributions for a couple of years and then toned them down a lot. But that's just an educated guess. If so I do wonder why your contributions weren't greater. Unfortunately at some point you're going to have to bear down and either demand a lot of info or pay someone to demand a lot of info and it's awfully hard to say whether it's worth it given the limited info we have.

As far as I'm concerned, yes. The amount due is a lot more than a regular payment, but I don't see why it wouldn't be eligible for using the cure period.

As long as you worked 1000 hours in a year, once, you would have satisfied eligibility to be in the plan, and then once in, dropping under 1000 hours in a year would not have kept you from getting the 3% safe harbor contribution (it sounds like you worked over 1000 hours every year anyway). There should have been notices at least once per year about the safe harbor contribution and whether it would be made. Unfortunately those notices are not always distributed. The SPD might only have vague language that the safe harbor "might" be made so the annual notice it really the key to knowing. Some sleuthing might be in order. You can find and look at tax returns here (at least the last two years): EFAST filing search to see if significant employEE contributions were made (that would be a strong clue that SH contributions were made). You may have to get a little bit...not nasty, but forceful, with your former employer in your request for information. You can ask the "plan administrator" that you mentioned but keep in mind that that person or company is just a third-part providing compliance assistance and ultimately your employer is almost certainly the "Plan Administrator" who is obligated to give you these answers. Good luck and feel free to write back.

No. And if we're being honest on the original questions...well, they're very astute questions. I wouldn't encourage you to not file at all, but filing for a full year is pretty low-risk.

That's a 67% increase in the number of boxes on that question. They probably had to get the software people involved, then the efficiency people, and the people who estimate how long it takes to complete the forms, and some others I don't know about. And they probably had meetings on whether it should be 6,7,8,9 or 10 boxes (or 12 or 14!). Not to mention the whole thing about changing "2009" to "2010". Whew! We're lucky to have it so soon.

That's a 67% increase in the number of boxes on that question. They probably had to get the software people involved, then the efficiency people, and the people who estimate how long it takes to complete the forms, and some others I don't know about. And they probably had meetings on whether it should be 6,7,8,9 or 10 boxes (or 12 or 14!). Not to mention the whole thing about changing "2009" to "2010". Whew! We're lucky to have it so soon.

You don't mention why the annuities are appropriate for the docs but not the employees; it seems one option is to just leave everything as is. In theory, you could offer everyone the option of investing in a pooled account or in a self-directed option (in this case, the variable annuities). But that adds a hassle factor and costs too. It might be a good time, given the pending participant fee disclosure rules, to consider whether the annuity provider or the advisor can provide the necessary disclosures without incurring additional expenses for that. If it were me, I'd take a serious look at a platform where everyone has the same options and where the provider takes care of the disclosures. I know, surrender charges make it look unattractive, but if you compare the one-time surrender charges to the additional fees the participants pay on an annual basis, it's probably a wash. (e.g. you might have a 5% surrender charge decreasing over 5 years but there's a wrap or other mortality and expense charge of 1% to 1.5% every year, so there's 5% or more paid over time. It all depends on what you're comparing it to but I guarantee I could make a good case to get rid of the annuities!)

Because it's not eligible for rollover.

You have to follow the terms of the document. What you described says to me that you could NOT just allocate 3% across the board.

Yes, that's a CODA. To not be a CODA, it should be a partnerSHIP decision.

I believe that is correct. I think it was posed to the IRS in something informal like a Q&A but really can't swear to it.

Definitely a BRF issue as it is presented, with the sponsor dictating the $ threshold. But (if I remember correctly) if a plan investment option has an external minimum requirement not imposed by the plan, that is ok. So it depends on exactly how this is presented and set up.

It sounds like there's no question they are late. I don't think the DOL cares too much about owners, but there's really no excuse for someone not understanding that if they take a paycheck, and deferred money out of it, then that money out to go somewhere. And they are supposed to answer the Qs on the 5500 honestly (under penalty of perjury). On the other hand, as the TPA, a little bit of blissful ignorance about the exact contribution dates is sometimes handy if they have otherwise told you everything was deposited in a timely manner.

Agree with ESOP Guy 100% on all comments. Unless it is a very significant part of the total picture, just bring it back in as "other income" and be done with it.

It's writing like this that gets us all in trouble. The "401(k)" most certainly does not require the owners to fund their own employer discretionary contributions. And the company decides how much each group gets under the group allocations. I don't know if the "they" you are referring to is the collective owners or the singular "him or her" owner who left. But I'd say if the memorandum to the trustees has not been signed yet, and the money hasn't been paid, that the contribution hasn't really been determined. If you're saying that each owner signs an individual election on how much his or her employer contribution is to be, then I'd say that you have a different set of problems.

I think it all depends on what the original waiver said. There seems to be an assumption that it was intended to be a one time irrevocable election (so that it would not be deemed a CODA) but the original poster did not say that. If not, then that carries with it certain (probably unpleasant) consequences. If so, then it should have covered any and all plans of the employer and a plan amendment won't change it. The apparent fact that the plan doesn't permit an opt-out presents a different problem.

No, the first RMD on account of death is not due until next year.

I feel, pretty strongly, that you do count receivables. Every single one of my calendar year plans has a "valuation date" on Dec 31 (and many - probably most - have valuation dates every day of the year). And they all have language about contributions being allocated as of the last day of the year (the valuation date), and we always prepare our account summaries on an accrual basis. So as far as I'm concerned, an accrued contribution of any type is part of their account. Accounting 101 says an accrual is an asset. I believe the reference in the IRS regs to adjustments after the val date is to reflect actual "new" contributions (most likely 401(k) deferrals), not the deposit of accrued contributions. And I didn't see anything in the link about the DOL addressing accruals; I thought it was all about gains and losses and did not translate to accruals. (They're right by the way about the account value being determined on the day of the loan, not the day the docs are signed, but there's only so much you can do...) My 2 cents.

But it's not just about finding money; the executrix may need the info to prepare estate and/or inheritance tax filings. I think she's entitled to it (as per the link to the other thread.)

Sometimes the old vendor will refuse to process distributions or loans as soon as they receive a notice of pending asset transfer. It's effectively a blackout before the intended blackout date. I don't have an answer to that problem, except to do the best you can in good faith. As far as sending contributions to the new vendor, no I don't think they need to wait 30 days from the blackout notice.

That statement is confusing me. Because you called it key-man insurance, I thought it was being held for the benefit of the plan as a whole (of course the fact that the employer was the bene clouds that conclusion). As I noted earlier, it is possible for the plan to pay for the premiums out of the general assets of the plan (but only if it is a pooled investment plan), as an expense that is allocated as part of the gains or losses, and then the proceeds would (should) be payable to the plan, and those proceeds would become a gain that is allocated among all participant accounts. But somehow I doubt that's what happened. In fact, now I think I get it - an insurance agent used the "key-man" angle to make the sale, and then he said, mmm, where is there money? Oh, there's money over here in the plan! Let's use it. So you get this messed-up result. If I wasn't clear about it, no, there is no way that ANY of the proceeds should be going anywhere other than to the plan. You also need to find out if the plan as a whole has been paying the premiums (unlikely) or if the premiums have specifically been taken from the owner's "account", whether that is a theoretical account in a pooled plan or an actual separate account in a self-directed plan (or if the premiums have been paid directly by the company and treated as contributions to the owner; same thing and perhaps most likely).

I'd check to make sure it really is "key man" insurance (owned by the plan and [supposed to be] payable to the plan, for the benefit of all participants in the event of death). In that case, it would have to be a pooled account, and premiums would have to have been treated as expenses of the plan as a whole and not charged to any one participant's (the owner) account. It's allowed, but I've never ever seen it. And, considering the cloak of stupidity that often comes with life insurance transactions, as evidenced by the following... ...it's worth looking into. If it really is key man insurance then tell them to change the bene to the plan; no other options.

Well of course, the "reallocate by broker" provisions of the plan apply. And the auditor has been ok with this?