Bird

Interesting; I am getting both "yes you can" and "no you can't" answers from Dr. google. None of the "authorities" have cites. Actually I think you can. "...the U.S. Treasury rules say you can’t open an account to buy savings bonds electronically through Treasury Direct in the name of an IRA." My emphasis on IRA but I imagine a plan cannot do that either. But that doesn't mean you can't buy them at all. I have a client who has owned some for many years so will follow this carefully!

Any time during the year. If it doesn't say last day or first day then I think it has to be at any time.

I think that tips the scales in favor of allowing this. She's basically not an advisor.

Sounds like they are trying to make a donation of time and expertise to a charity. Peter, your cites seem to soundly support the idea that compensation must be received to be a fiduciary. Having said that, no good deed goes unpunished, so I suppose the weakness in the argument could be that there is intangible comp involved. Maybe, I dunno.

I think that is the crux of the question - if there is no distributable event, then generally you have to wait until it is distributable and in fact distributed. At which point it is just money - part of any distribution, and taxed. It will have been taxed already in 2020 through the mechanics of filing the tax return; there is no special reporting (i.e. someone deferred 21500 and could only do 19500 - they adjust their taxable income to add 1000). Maybe EPCRS has a provision allowing a distribution after 4/15/21 but I think it is only available in the first year? I haven't had to do it so that is just a vague recollection.

So many numbers and letters, wow! 😀 Thanks, I think I get it.

Luke, thanks for the reply. Sorry the point of my question was not clear...it was actually for purposes of determining HCE status. You are correct in your assumptions about sister being sister of son. The Q is whether sister is an HCE by attribution of the mother's interest in the trust. I know, at some point we need a copy of the trust.

Son owns 1/3 of company stock, and 2/3 is owned by a trust, where mother is an income beneficiary. Sister owns no stock directly and I am noodling on whether mother's trust interest is attributed to sister. Initially I thought "of course", then read somewhere that only actual interest would be attributed. Then I looked in Who's the Employer and it confused me more. I suppose we'd have to have the actual trust to see how and when mother could get more than just income, but let's assume she only has an income interest. Or would any trust interest simply not be attributed under the rules against double attribution? Any thoughts?

It's not a requirement, it's a "deemed to satisfy" thing. I wouldn't hesitate to amend and do a new notice; I mean good grief, a notice should not entitle someone who is not in the plan yet to anything.

A. Name one or two that will do that. All RKs I know refuse to deal with participants except in rare cases. B. If you don't make payments thru payroll they're generally not going to be made at all.

that At least that's what I remember from half-listening to Derrin's recent webinar.

I'm not Gary Lesser but his example was for an ongoing company. If a company doesn't exist and has no employees it can't very well sponsor a plan even if it wants to. (Of course if it doesn't exist it has no thoughts/wants but I digress.) I'm cautious about applying logic to retirement plans but here logic triumphs. You can give a courtesy notice ("because we don't exist we won't continue to sponsor the plan") but I don't see any problems with notice requirements.

no

Agree. The fact that it is an RMD is irrelevant as far as who gets it. It goes to the beneficiary, however that is determined.

Appleby, thanks for your feedback. I am still confused though... you agreed with me that an estate cannot establish an IRA because it is not a designated beneficiary. But later you said that they could establish a beneficiary IRA for the estate, then transfer to a beneficiary IRA for the child. I'm concerned about the 1099-R reporting - I think, if the money does not go directly to the child's IRA and it goes to the estate, it will be reported as taxable, and the estate has no standing to roll it over to the child's IRA. Anyway, I'm not directly involved and was just trying to help out an attorney client who had this situation with his own client. As you note, some of this is up to what the custodian will do operationally, and I told them to push for a rollover directly to the child's IRA.

That's really the heart of the question. I didn't think an estate was a designated bene and therefore would be unable to establish an IRA, and wouldn't it all be due by the end of the year after death? And if in fact we can look through all of the documents and see that the child is the ultimate bene, should(n't) we be able to establish an inherited IRA in her name without it literally going through the estate?

Forget about the 3%. You are making a PS contribution of 5%. That is more than 3% so TH is satisfied. It (3%) does not get special treatment.

It wasn't a question about a document. The husband named the wife as bene, and she died without changing anything and therefore her estate is her bene, no doubt about that (I suppose I should have mentioned that there was no clause saying that if she died in a short period that it would pass to contingents). I think that since death occured after 12/31/19, the money can pass through the estate to the child/ren and they can set up an inherited IRA(s) and take the money out over 10 years. Just looking to confirm I am understanding SECURE Act rules.

Would(n't) it be similar to an employee who terminates, then is rehired? Yes they had a distributable event but if the new company adopts the plan, or merges the old one into a new one, I think the distributable event goes away legitimately.

Husband was receiving RMDs (in late 70s) and died 1/2/21, leaving IRA to wife. Wife died 2/1; account was never moved to her name. There is a child or children who are estate beneficiaries. The investment company is saying that the money belongs to the wife's estate and I agree with that. They are saying that the child/ren can set up an inherited IRA account and take it over 10 years. After working it through and typing it out, I agree with that, but wanted to see what others think. Nothing fancy with the estate as far as trusts.

The client with the SIMPLE plan now would have to continue as an independent entity to use the transition rule. You have a brand new company and the only significance of the prior companies would be for service crediting. i.e. you can't carve out employees who were covered under the SIMPLE and continue to have them participate in the SIMPLE while others participate in the 401(k).

We always kept track of the cumulative PS-58 costs if we prepared the 1099-Rs.

cashed into the plan, then distributed Actually I don't think it is so much about the reporting requirements because it could be considered a rollover from a plan to an IRA. But I doubt the insurance company would agree to do that. And...some of that money is tax-free so you just don't want to do that.

I'm sorry, I can't help. Makes no sense to me.

Can you give an example?