masteff

It is only under the final sentence of Reg 1.401(k)-2(b)(2)(v) that if the participant's account has been fully distributed that the correction is retroactively applied to said distribution. I could easily argue under (b)(2)(v) that since the participant has an available balance now (at the time of corrective distribution) then those funds should be used to make the correction. The Nov distribution was not designated as a corrective distribution at the time it was made. "(v) Distribution. Within 12 months after the close of the plan year in which the excess contribution arose, the plan must distribute to each HCE the excess contributions apportioned to such HCE under paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section and the allocable income. Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph (b)(2)(v) and paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this section, a distribution of excess contributions must be in addition to any other distributions made during the year and must be designated as a corrective distribution by the employer. In the event of a complete termination of the plan during the plan year in which an excess contribution arose, the corrective distribution must be made as soon as administratively feasible after the date of termination of the plan, but in no event later than 12 months after the date of termination. If the entire account balance of an HCE is distributed prior to when the plan makes a distribution of excess contributions in accordance with this paragraph (b)(2), the distribution is deemed to have been a corrective distribution of excess contributions (and income) to the extent that a corrective distribution would otherwise have been required." (emphasis added) Personally, I would print that reg out, highlight the "Except as otherwise..." sentence and put it in the participant's file as documentation for why you made the correction from current funds. I don't see an auditor fighting it.

Has the financial institution been contacted about correcting the deposit (assuming the funds are still in the account)? Or now that the participant has the money in hand, does he want to keep it?

So would that be considered a request on the form of the plan or on some other aspect of it? From Rev Proc 2014-4, section 6.02(1): "403(b) (except with respect to whether the form of a plan satisfies the requirements of § 403(b) as noted in Ann. 2009-89)" Here's the rev proc: http://www.irs.gov/irb/2014-1_IRB/ar08.html And here's that announcement: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/a-09-89.pdf The announcement states you can rely on it. I take that to be for the foreseeable future. EDIT: Ouch!!! Rev Proc 2013-22 Section 4.02(3) says in part: "Employers using individually designed plans will not be entitled to reliance that their plan terms comply with the requirements of § 403(b) unless they timely restate their plans in the form of a pre-approved plan. As a result, after the deadline described in section 21.05, the sponsor of an individually designed § 403(b) plan will not have reliance that the terms of the plan document meet the applicable requirements for favorable tax treatment." http://www.irs.gov/irb/2013-18_IRB/ar10.html

The other likely reason: repurchase liability. If the company is doing well, that liability is growing quickly. http://esoppartners.com/blog/bid/139462/ESOP-Repurchase-Obligation-What-is-the-ESOP-Repurchase-Liability

I agree w/ Belgarath (including his list of caveats). The most relevant regs are in 1.72(p)-1 Q&A 5 thru 8. It's helpful for Q&A-8 to note that this is a refinancing of a plan loan and not of a mortgage.

My cynical opinion is they want to knows whose home to raid and computers to seize. What's annoying to me is the inconsistency between this (a change in responsible party) and a change in address. http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc157.html Why don't they simply add a "responsible party" line to every relevant return and capture the change annually? (I know, I know, because the IRS never does anything "simply".)

Based on my original reply in this thread dating from 2010, I will state emphatically that the IRA agreement that I reviewed in 2010 would have split the IRA between the two children in your situation. I suggest you closely read posts #1 and 2 of this thread as they (very clearly in my opinion) provide information as to what the Wachovia IRA agreement said at that time. While I do not have a copy of it any more, I have no reason to doubt the conclusions I and other members of the board reached at that time.

The first word of that sentence is "Also". 1099-R in general is for all pension, profit-sharing and retirement plan payments. A 1099-R with code 4 is also used for certain other death benefit payments by an employer that are other than pension, profit-sharing and retirement plan payments.

Is post #6 in this thread your answer? http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/35785-combine-existing-403b-and-401a/

To be "designated as an MP plan", by which I presume you're alluding to the language in 401(a)(27), would imply that the trust is qualified under 401(a) since I'm not seeing a direct or indirect cross-reference in 403(b) to (27) such that it would apply w/out being qualifed. (One consequence of which is the plan would need a determination letter.) Internet searching is not revealing anything useful about "tiaa cref 403b money purchase pension". I kinda wonder if it's not two plans being described in a combined summary. http://www.bates.edu/prebuilt/hr/hr-retirement-plans-summary.pdf http://www.hr.pitt.edu/sites/default/files/pitt_401_spd.pdf

Define where else it's designated as an MPP, excluding the 5500 codes which are highly subject to human error. And as I noted in my first post, have you examined the offending plan document to see if it contains the requisite language of an MPP?

You're overthinking it... Suppose I called my rollover IRA the "masteff Money Purchase Pension Plan". Would the name make it a 401(a) MPP? No. See my post above. You have to look into the document's guts to see if it contains the features of a 401(a) MPP before you declare it to be such. I can find a dog with mange and call it a chupacabra, but it's still a dog with mange. (not to imply that 403(b) plans are dogs with mange ).

My thought is that the name "403(b) MPP" was a marketing tool that someone didn't realize was a really bad idea because of the confusion it's now creating. I could see them marketing it this way to non-profits who have board members more familiar with MPPs than 403(b)s. I would not assume it's a true 401(a) MPP until it's proven to be one. If you have the plan document and if you have list of the essential features of a 401(a) MPP, you could review the document and see if it truly contains those features. You could then compare against the features of a 403(b).

I'd expect the plan to mention or discuss it elsewhere if the participant actually has an option (which is why I'm sure you're questioning the word "desires"). I'd also want to read for any nuance about the rehire. You may conclude his previous choice to participate can't be waived now. Without looking it up, I'd would not think it would be the same as the opt out in the 401(k) regs by simple virtue of a) after-tax vs pre-tax and b) your plan predates 401(k).

You code citation is Reg 1.402(c )-2 Q&A-7. Note that it stipulates the calendar year so it's not relevant that it's prior to the actual day on which he turns 70 1/2.

This document in general but especially the 4th page, item C.7 seems to be your answer. http://www.asppa.org/Main-Menu/confswebcasts/webcasts/archived/061510/docs/Self-Employed-Income-Determination.aspx But it's dated in 2007 so you'll want to make a quick review to confirm nothing has changed. EDIT: So using the cites in that document, IRS Code Section 164(f) says "(other than the taxes imposed by section 1401 (b)(2))", which is the additional medicare tax. So SE tax does not include the extra medicare tax. So you do nothing different. This goes along w/ the fact that even SE people will use form 8959 to report the extra tax.

? Why? because you changed tax brackets and the tax would be less if incurred last year? Generally speaking, you're a cash basis taxpayer which means you report it in the year distributed. The one position you could take is constructive receipt. Search the term in IRS Pub 538. I offer no opinion as to whether that claim would have merit or not in your particular circumstances of which I do not have all pertinent facts; you are entirely responsible for reaching that conclusion yourself. If you asserted constructive receipt, you would report it in 2013 and then in 2014, since they'll be matching your 1040 to any 1099-Rs, you'd put on the appropriate 1040 line in box a and then in box b you'd put zero taxable since you paid the tax in 2013 under constructive receipt. Of course, you might start w/ the brokerage and request that they issue a 1099-R on the grounds of constructive receipt (actually, I'd do it in the form of a letter).

Page 4 of this notice is helpful toward answering your question: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-13-54.pdf

It's somewhere in the financial need test. Treas. Reg.§1.401(k)-1(d)(3)(iv)(E)(1) Yes, Treas. Reg.§1.401(k)-1(d)(3) is the rules on hardships. As I stated, the regs require a loan for hardships. The regs do not require a loan for a non-hardship in-service distributions, unless the plan itself requires it. My 2 Cents appeared to suggest a loan might be required in both cases.

I do not see where the definition of service is tied to comp, in particular for an owner-employee (see 408(k) cross-ref to 401(c )).

1) To edit a new post, I've found you have to exit the thread and then reenter it, such as by clicking "new content" and the clicking the thread. Not sure why. 2) One 5329 per beneficiary showing the combined amount. 3) Yes, you're the paid preparer. But that begs a question: Do the beneficiaries have anything else from other sources that needs to be reported on form 5329? If so, then I'd provide the information "pro forma" only and let them complete their own 5329. Keep in mind that 5329 can only be filed by itself if the taxpayer is not otherwise required to file. If they have to file, then 5329 must be attached to 1040 (or 1040X if its for a prior year).

How on Earth, 5+ years after the devastating collapse of collateralized mortgages, would any plan fiduciary permit their plan to hold so much money in mortgages? Your item #4 sounds like a breach of fiduciary prudence to me. If they're going to talk to a lawyer as indicated in item #1, you should advise they be sure it's a firm w/ someone well versed in ERISA because I suspect they'll be filing something w/ the IRS or DOL by the time this is done.

Given your reference to word processing personnel and nurses, I assume that rather than regulations, you're referring to the Committee Report on SBJPA96 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&sid=cp104ncvda&r_n=hr737.104&dbname=cp104&&sel=TOC_792542& otherwise, please provide a cite for the regulation you're referring to as I'm not aware of a reg on 414(n). Since it's a Committee Report, you should not apply it as a bright line test. You state that Co A maintains control of the employees. Do you have any basis to contest this other than trying to be diligent? Does Co A agree that it controls the employees? It's entirely reasonable that the doctor is not in primary control of the employees, having assigned such primary control over to Company A who probably exercises that control via someone such as an office manager. Don't overanalyze to the point that you throw out perfectly good facts.

Okay, I missed that it changed to a limited FSA the first time thru. Your answer is in IRS Notice 2004-50 Q&A-59. It appears consistent with Notice 2005-86. I'll let you reach your own conclusion on how it applies to your specific situation.

To expand on it slightly... it's by virtue of the definition of required beginning date. Currently RBD hasn't been triggered but if he retires before 12/31 then it's triggered for the calendar year. Part of the relevant info is in Reg 1.402©-2 Q&A-7 with the rest in the 401(a)(9) regs.