masteff

Nope, that's basis in an individual security in an ordinary account. Not the basis in an IRA/Roth IRA.

I'm a little confused by the original post since the implication is that a hardship is better than an in-service w/ 20% mandatory w/holding. Perhaps it's because I started out at a company that was moderately paternalistic but I'd rather see the employee be forced to do some withholding. The regs only require a loan before a hardship, not before an in-service, unless the plan itself requires it.

You're confused because you kept reading past "no HSA if covered by a Health FSA". You state you had a health FSA for all of 2013. Nothing else pertains after you find a fact that causes you to not be eligible. However you should talk to your HR or Benefits department to see if they have reached a conclusion on the topic (after all, they offered you an HDHP and in 2014 a limited FSA so they're clearly trying to comply w/ the relevant rules). And the years in your post seem to be messed up. You have a number of 2012's which I presume is because you were reading examples from somewhere else while trying to write this. Perhaps edit your post to fix the years.

Do you mean loan or do you mean hardship? If you truly mean loan, then it's a plan restriction rather than a legal one, so I'd think that's an administrative decision for the plan sponsor.

You're probably 1/2 right on this one. My understanding is that the plan name isn't super critical and could just as easily be the "I'm scared of clowns 401k plan". You're probably on a prototype plan which means you don't have an individually designed plan but rather have a plan that has a core document and then an adoption agreement which specifies certain choices about how your specific plan will work. That adoption agreement is what may need to be updated to reflect the other company. I say may because we need the info about ownership that ESOP Guy talks about above. In looking at this thread: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/54649-is-an-amendment-necessary-for-plan-sponsor-name-change/ it seems to me that you should figure out how your plan defines certain key terms like: employer, employee and plan sponsor. The payroll company should be able to provide a boiler-plate board resolution to include the other company as an employer and if desired to make the parent instead of sub be the plan sponsor. Oh, and to change the plan name if desired. One suggestion is to use a generic phrase like "and participating subsidiaries" in the title to minimize future changes. (with the caveat about ESOP Guy's ownership questions)

Some tax software will track your Roth basis it as long as you put the number in every year. One tricky part of automated basis tracking is rollovers and transfers. The history doesn't move with the money. Of course that can also be true if the brokerage does a major system upgrade; had a little trouble when my dad got Alzheimers because the brokerage did the upgrade as a balance forward transaction.

Yes, it is allowed for the participant to do that by direct rollover. Notice 2010-84 Q&A-12 emphasis added: Q-12. Are there any special rules relating to the application of the 10% additional tax under § 72(t) for distributions allocable to the taxable amount of an in-plan Roth rollover made within the preceding 5 years? A-12. Yes, pursuant to §§ 402A©(4)(D) and 408A(d)(3)(F), if an amount allocable to the taxable amount of an in-plan Roth rollover is distributed within the 5-taxable-year period beginning with the first day of the participant’s taxable year in which the rollover was made, the amount distributed is treated as includible in gross income for the purpose of applying § 72(t) to the distribution. The 5-taxable-year period ends on the last day of the participant’s fifth taxable year in the period. Thus, if a participant withdraws an amount that includes $6,000 allocable to the taxable amount of an in-plan Roth rollover made within the preceding 5 years, the $6,000 is treated as includible in the participant’s gross income for purposes of applying § 72(t) to the distribution. In such a case, the participant would owe an additional tax of $600 unless an exception under § 72(t)(2) applies. The 5-year recapture rule in this Q&A-12 does not apply to a distribution that is rolled over to another designated Roth account of the participant or to a Roth IRA owned by the participant; however, the rule does apply to subsequent distributions made from such other designated Roth account or Roth IRA within the 5-taxable-year period. For purposes of this Q&A-12, the rules in § 1.408A-6, Q&A-5, on the application of § 72(t) also apply. See Q&A-13 of this notice for rules on allocating distributions to the taxable amount of in-plan Roth rollovers.

My bad - I added an element of it being an FSA - Belgarath's original post does say cafeteria plan.

Page 5 of that document talks about "excepted benefits". Certain dental plans qualify as excepted benefits. It seems to me from a cursory review that what Belgarath proposes would be an excepted benefit and therefore permissible under an FSA; but it was only cursory so I'd gladly let someone w/ better info on the topic of excepted benefits to provide a better answer. See page 6 here: http://www.ftwilliam.com/Docs/10_24_13%20Q+As.pdf "In addition, benefits provided under a health flexible spending arrangement are excepted benefits if they satisfy the requirements of paragraph ©(3)(v) of this section."

Please keep us posted on further developments!

5500 instructions, page 4, "Notes: ... (2) If the 2014 Form 5500 is not available before the plan or DFE filing is due, use the 2013 Form 5500 and enter the 2014 fiscal year beginning and ending dates on the line provided at the top of the form."

I was about to speculate on an ulterior motive for this program, that this is a way to develop a recording keeping infrastructure of suitable size to then modify Social Security into individual accounts... but then I realized the government has the Thrift Savings Plan so they have that infrastructure already. Although, they don't have the infrastructure for pay period reporting and contributions from private sector employers. Having worked at a corporation w/ 4500 employees on bi-weekly and semi-monthly pay cycles, I can say that just reporting a single source of contributions would take some effort to get running on a correct and consistent basis. So I'm back to my initial theory: this a baby step toward a modification of Social Security.

Unless you're trying to make a semantic about, say, 80% vested vs 100% vested, then yes, only vested amounts are allowed. Notice 2013-74 Q&A-1 http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-13-74.pdf Notice 2010-84 Q&A-2 http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-10-84.pdf

So from the fact sheet that Austin linked to just above, 2nd paragraph 1st sentence: the MyRA is a Roth IRA. The novel thing is the Treasury Department directly offering any type of IRA account. People have asked for a number of years to be able to set up IRA accounts at TreasuryDirect.gov

http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/BobrowMemo.Nega.TCM.WPD.pdf "Regardless of how many IRAs he or she maintains, a taxpayer may make only one nontaxable rollover contribution within each one-year period." That completely contradicts the IRS' own example in Publication 590, see page 25: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p590.pdf (Here's the 2008 version since that's the tax year at issue: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/p590--2008.pdf It has the same example.) I also disagree w/ the table on page 6 in the Memo because again Pub 590 says a rollover can be done to the same IRA; the only way that table works is if you require the money go into a different IRA than it was distributed from.

I would suggest searching on medigap rather than medicare supplement as it appears that cms.gov uses the term "supplementary medical insurance" in reference to Medicare Part B and you can accidentally wind up w/ the wrong statistic. That said, GMK's second link is what I would use as for the answer. @GBurns - medigap is generally regulated as to coverages: http://www.medicare.gov/supplement-other-insurance/compare-medigap/compare-medigap.html

Thoroughly document the administrative error so you have a paper trail showing it was the plan's mistake and not the participant's.

So if ERISA doesn't apply then we have to ask ourselves, under what part of the law are QDROs then permitted in a 403(b). It appears to me that it's IRC 414(p). The most relevant paragraphs for your question are 414(p)(9) and 414(p)(6). 414(p)(7)(A) does seem to leave it open for a court or some other entity to determine qualification.

Might start w/ the next to last two questions here: http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq_qdro.html

Date of hire for what purpose? I can easily set a new hire's DOH to a different date for purposes like vacation accrual. It's much harder for benefits that are more regulated like service in a retirement plan. Some employers track multiple dates for multiple purposes. Maybe if you understood why they're wanting to use 7/1 then you could better advise them. You might be surprised to learn it's for seniority on parking spaces or something you don't care about like that; in which case you make a note for the file and double check every year to make sure his date is the one that matters for your purpose (ie August).

Yes. But although I'm certain the Service would have a cow if it technically was the 2nd distribution just so it was done.

Not that I'm advocating a particular solution but I will point out that it doesn't have to be $7200 to them. It could be $7200 reduced by a reasonable estimate of any and all upcoming plan expenses that can also be paid from forfeitures.

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/30753-ira-owned-by-a-living-trust/

Has the owner considered making a current contribution for the 2 employees under plan section 3.8 or 6.10 (assuming either of those sections is useful to us right now) even though he can't make one for himself? ("profit sharing" is a misnomer since generally can make a contribution to employees even if the business has a net loss.) If you excluded the owner and sons, using '07 or '09, would you have a different result than the 2 current employees? And does any other person who'd get an allocation under that assumption still have an account balance in the plan or would you have the problem of distributing minor balances to previously cashed out participants? You could make a slightly conservative estimate of your fees. The owner could then use the forfs to make a contribution to the two employees and later pay the bulk of your fees (with any remainder of your fee being paid outside the plan). It would use up the forfeitures w/out discriminating and would minimize his out of pocket expense on a business that is currenly losing money.

Does any section of the plan go into any greater detail about installment payments? And does it limit how a participant's installment would be calculated rather than allowing the participant to elect any desired amount? And no matter how precise a formula might be, if the name of the formula contains the word "minimum" then by definition of that word, an amount larger than it would also meet the requirement. You would need other words which would in turn limit the maximum such as "not more than the minimum distribution required under 401(a)(9)", "not greater than...", "equal to...", etc.