Bird

That's what I'm inclined to think. Unless there is language specifically saying that the bene has to take possession of the money, I think that the rights would pass to the estate.

We tend not to want to force people out because of the hassle of following up, but when we do, we generally send a forms package, and say if they don't respond within 60 days they'll be forced out according to plan terms. The package will go out sometime after they are entitled to a distribution; whenever all of the pieces are in place to determine what they are entitled to.

We answer the question Yes or No as appropriate. What is the argument for leaving it blank?

Well that's just a bad job. I think the PA has a case to recover the money since the payout was indeed incorrect. How that's done, I dunno; my job is to keep things from getting screwed up, not fixing them.

I think this was discussed recently and the conclusion was yes, use the code whenever a plan has provisions to default to an investment. It doesn't have to be a QDIA. I don't know that we've been consistent on that reply and am not too worried about whether it is right or wrong. Be careful where you're going with that...at some point, you start to wonder what's the point of any of the crap we have to do...

That's a decision (to do a special valuation) that should have been made at the time the funds were paid out. The onus is on the Plan Administrator and/or Trustee to explain why the money should come back now. As noted, if the payment was made before the plan would otherwise allow it, that might, just might provide some basis for requesting the money back. Also note that most of the damage came in the fall of '08; when did the participant get paid out (and if it was late in the year, was the Plan Administrator really that stupid to just pay out a [presumably] large share of the plan without considering the consequences?)

If distributions are lump sum only, no annuities, spousal consent is not needed (and you shouldn't be asking for it).

He must have taken out more than would have been required if he had done the calcs as beneficiary and not owner, right? So he did take out what was required, and then some; that statement from the regs would be applicable more typically where the surviving spouse just didn't take any money out at all. That, plus the titling of the account, makes me think that it is what it is titled as. Sorry.

No experience, but that is a novel theory. I doubt it will get much traction.

We opened the floodgates after the DOL FAQ update and have filed maybe 40% of our returns. Almost everyone has opted for the scanned signature. It's all going very smoothly so far.

Can I get some suggestions for search services? I know this has been covered before but the one that is most recommended - I can't remember the name - seems geared towards high volumes, with minimum fees. We need to search for one or two here and there...

You would be a Filing Signer. I imagine there will be a few clients who would prefer to get the credentials and do the electronic filing themselves. I think you can export an XML file and tell them to upload it through IFILE but that sounds awfully clunky.

If the rollover is allowed at the time it is done, but later it is determined that an RMD was due, you can just classify some of the money that was rolled over as taxable when you do the 1099-Rs (now 2 will be needed) and the participant will have the responsibility of taking it out of the IRA as an excess contribution before the due date of his tax return.

I think you are right on all counts - not good to exclude on a classification of "seasonal"; they will enter the plan but then will not share in PS if not employed on last day of the year. We have a plan like this except the employer is very generous, and doesn't have a last day provision.

Ditto. And have filed plans successfully. The instructions are clear that if it is a DC plan you leave it blank.

I don't think that there is any 8f reporting for an AF RKD plan, at least where recordkeeping fees are waived. If there are direct fees charged, they would show up in the trust report.

I asked Fort William - they said Filing Signer. And since I already have those credentials for my own plan, I can use them.

It's ok to do/have both but a default investment is not necessarily a Qualified Default Investment.

Yes, I think the plan could roll over 100% in 2011 because it doesn't know at that point if the bene will take an RMD in 2011 or wait the five years. The bene could start the RMDs from the IRA in 2011. Sort of. I think the term "inherited IRA" means an IRA that is set up by a beneficiary to accept a qualified plan rollover. If you inherit an IRA, that IRA can stay in the name of the decedent and be paid out the same way.

Except for signing a check, I don't see how having an actual signature to work from for forgery purposes gives an advantage - it's not like the lender or notary signing the power of attorney has a signature to compare the forgery, or random signature, against. And if we're talking about checks left on a table in an office, I'm sure the employee has plenty of opportunities to find a signature somewhere else. I think it (the signature requirement) is silly and hope it is relaxed, but let's prioritize our concerns - I'm sure our clients take a bigger risk of getting killed when they get in their cars and go to work, and don't give it a second thought.

Not sure why you are asking about a true-up. You have a "true-down" problem.

No. It's ok to match on a payroll basis, if the document so provides, but that doesn't give the right to ignore the annual comp limit. (Happens all the time.)

I think he can just contribute $11,000 to the new company's plan; they don't know about the $16,500 already in. The refund is being processed as an Excess Contribution (failed test) but it's the same code as an Excess Deferral, which it becomes retroactively.

I re-read your first post and it sounds like this was a rollover from one type of Roth account to another type of Roth account, a variable annuity. Your comment about earnings being taxable before 59 1/2 threw me off; that's true for any type of Roth account (plus a penalty). To be honest, the use of variable annuities within Roth accounts (or regular accounts for that matter) is quite common and generally meet the fairly low bar of being "suitable" so you probably can't do much at this point except make the best of the existing contract, or bite the bullet and surrender it and pay those costs.

I figured the chances of this were Slim and None but put a small bet on Slim anyway (by waiting and doing nothing in terms of getting clients to register). Slim pulled it out! I figure most of my clients will take the public signature over doing their own registration, and will send them the forms and authorization to sign and give them the option of registering if the public signature bothers them. Submitting the signed form as a pdf is a little silly and obsessive but I'll take it; it's great to have the choice.