Bird

The terminating plan is a money purchase plan. Would you advocate forced rollovers from a DB plan to a 401(k)?

We've had this several times and have had the executor sign docs. Different investment companies will have different requirements and it is a matter of jumping through their hoops and satisfying their requirements, and sometimes wheedling and cajoling them into accepting what we all know is ok.

I'd suggest not editing an original post to completely re-write it. It makes the thread, and especially the responses, confusing.

I'd think so, at least effectively. Probably something else but as above, they are effectively contributions. This should be fixed by returning money to the corp, whether or not with IRS approval. Amusing that they don't want to be reimbursed. How does one wipe out the obligations without showing a distribution?! Fascinating what some people can do to screw things up; I mean you really do have to try very hard to do something so very wrong.

Not that I know of. Info is kinda sketchy - are these averages of the EBARs or contribution rates? If the latter, how is the overall less than 25%? Either way, isn't that the ABT?

Nothing in that statement changes anything I said. I'll spell it out: They could merge the plans, in which case no one has any rights to a distribution, except due to termination of employment (i.e. it is not a plan termination). The new plan would have to retain the annuity provisions on the old money. They probably don't want to do that. They could terminate the plan, in which case everyone has rights to distributions, but they don't get to roll over any unresponsive accounts, at least in my opinion. If they did somehow finagle this into a combo termination/merger, and I have never seen it, they would have to retain the annuity provisions on the old money.

Wait - you have an an "entry date requirement" met on 12/30 and that is in fact the entry date, and comp prior to entry is excluded? What was the thinking behind that, or am I missing something? I have plans with a last-day-of year entry date (not many) but comp for the whole year is included.

Well, I'll just answer your initial question then and say no. OK, I'll add that it sounds like someone doesn't know what they are doing, and is treading on dangerous ground. We just dealt with a big-box provider that didn't know the difference between a termination and a merger.

We might work in different worlds but I take almost the exact opposite approach - keep 'em out as long as possible. Otherwise you are creating unwanted employer contributions in a top-heavy plan, and even one particpant with a small balance creates hassles that my small plan sponsors don't need or want.

Can we start with basics - was the plan terminated?

That was my first question - whether it was a purchase or distribution or combo of some sort. Agree that you need a distribution to recover.

You're right, it was a PLR not a RR. Thanks!

Agreed/good clarification.

For additional context, my hunch/inclination was based on a revenue ruling, back in the dark ages, that said participants could recover their PS-58s even if they did not take the policy as a distribution from the plan. Prior to said revenue ruling, you would lose your cumulative PS-58s if you surrendered the policy within the plan. My take on the RR is that if/when you take any kind of distribution you get to recover any/all PS-58s. Some other geezer can show off and cite the RR.

I don't think so. Any PS-58 costs paid should be recoverable as basis somewhere/somehow.

Is this a combo of distribution (presumably of the cum PS-58s) and purchase of the balance? I'm not sure...might lean towards using the total.

I'm pretty sure you would use the SF. It's all about the year beginning, right? I don't think you'd have the option to file a 2019 EZ electronically if you tried that.

I'm with you and the CB providers. No allocation needed for gateway.

Is(n't) the primary risk of the substantial and recurring issue that contributions would be DQ'd, and/or that immediate vesting is required? Also I think if that remains a concern that the sponsor could find some source of earned income. I think it's an interesting idea but would not undertake it with standard "one-man plan" pricing.

Mmm, my first reaction was "why would you even consider that" but I see why. Someone could earn max comp in the short "period" and it could be discriminatory to stop the match. But I think no - as you note, the caveat is specific to safe harbors, and presumably, any potential discrimination in a discretionary match is going to be caught in the ACP test.

Never once has the idea of filing a change of address for a terminated plan flitted through my mind. Gotta love Mike Preston's pithy one-word answers, and I agree 100% in this case that it would be wrong to think the IRS could track down a plan sponsor through a SSN. But Mike, do you file a change of address after a final return (!)?

Yeah. And I'm not sure I agree that it can't be done. Did Dennis and Ilene have a cite(s) or were they just being cautious?

How is the partnership dissolving and still existing? It sounds like they are terminating the partnership but it will effectively remain in existence until such time as all revenues are cleaned out. I'd hold off on the plan termination date.

Mmm, we do it all the time (count the full vested balance in the 50% calc even if only allowing loans from deferrals).

I assume the rest of this was that "they prepared the 1099s." Not surprising -AXA is an insurance company. For whatever reason, insurance companies tend to do WH and reporting, even if not a fully self-directed plan. Brokerage firms (generally) don't. If they didn't submit the WH, and I seriously doubt it, then you have to. You'll have to ask to be sure. Which raises the question...was the withholding submitted to the IRS? No offense, but if you don't know this, and don't know how to do it, maybe you should look to PenChecks or somebody like that to handle this going forward.