masteff

http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/publications/fiduciaryresponsibility.html

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/55213-cant-quote-or-paste-or-cant-edit-a-new-post-heres-how/

You'll want to look over EPCRS. I believe you're looking a VCP filing.

I'd maybe double check the form after it was submitted to be sure it hadn't been improperly altered, such as an attempt to make the election irrevocable.

Generally, see Code Section 72 for "investment in the contract" rules. See 72(d)(1)(D) for rule saying when a partial lump sum is done with the start of an annuity, the lump sum is treated as not being part of the annuity.

Kevin's cite above references Rev Rul 1976-250 which discusses the difference between DB and DC plans. https://www.charitableplanning.com/document/671769 Selected quotes: "There is no similar requirement for defined contribution plans; in contrast, section 411(a)(7) provides that a participant's accrued benefit under a defined contribution plan is the balance of the employee's account. ... Thus, for example, a defined contribution plan could, without violating the minimum participation or vesting standards of sections 410 and 411 of the Code, require that a participant be employed as of the last day of a computation period in order to receive an allocation." While it's a 38-year old ruling, I think the road map it lays out is mostly valid still. Especially given the reg cited cross-references to it.

Definitely in a bigger company, a benefit plans committee is a good way to go.

GMK, you may be recalling this one: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/47952-after-tax-rollover/ In it, you linked to an older thread which has the link I posted above.

So I searched the forum and found the one thread where this was brought up here in December 2009. The topic was settled by the following. From the top of page 5 here: ftp://ftp.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/spr10.pdf "Ordering Rule for Partial Rollovers "If you receive an IRA or plan distribution that consists of after-tax and pre-tax amounts, you would first use the formulas above to determine the pre-tax amount of the distribution. If you roll over only part of that distribution to a Roth IRA, the first dollars rolled over come from the pre-tax amount of the distribution. After all the pre-tax portion of the distribution has been rolled over, any remaining amount is after-tax, which may also be rolled over to a Roth IRA."

A couple links for you... Rev Rul 2010-27 http://www.irs.gov/irb/2010-45_IRB/ar09.html Reg 1.457-6 http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=ce248eaef2d23fe09d2c0a22ecc9da7a&node=26:6.0.1.1.1.0.5.61&rgn=div8

I waited to see what others said before weighing in... First, I presume you intend the jargon meaning of CE: education hours required by a governing body to maintain a license or certification. (Most non-credit classes at my local vo-tech and community college are labeled "continuing ed".) If you want to be easy, then most any education which requires either a high school education or adulthood is post-secondary. I would argue that in the jargon meaning above, CE is post-secondary because those certifications are generally post-secondary in nature themselves. If you want to be semi-strict, some plans look at the education tax credits for what constitutes "post-secondary education", using the definition of an "eligible educational institution" which is: "any college, university, vocational school, or other post secondary educational institution eligible to participate in a student aid program run by the U.S. Department of Education." http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/Eligible-Educational-Inst This is a "safe" answer although it will exclude some training that is clearly vocational in nature.

Technically, he's too late for this year. But yes, it's been discussed and agreed in a couple of prior threads that he could take his 2014 minimum required distribution and then rollover to the plan and not have to do distributions in future years until such time as he retires.

A SIMPLE 401(k) is simply a way to pass ADP and top-heavy. Looking at the IRS Code, subsection 401(k)(11) is entitled: "(11) Adoption of simple plan to meet nondiscrimination tests". I don't see any thing that would make a new 401(k) care about the existence of a frozen SIMPLE 401(k). You'll have other issues, such as the successor plan rule, to be careful of. But nothing that I see by virtue of it being a frozen SIMPLE.

MWeddell - That FAB is a good find. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/29898-what-are-the-benefits-for-a-nonprofit-to-offer-a-401k-and-403b-plan/ See Reg 1.403(b)-10, search on "401". You'll find where it discusses transfers to a 401(a) plan but if you follow it thru, you'll see it's only for limited circumstances involving "purchases of permissive service credit" in a governmental plan. Mergers are outside my area of knowledge so I'll let you search from there. 401(k) and 403(b) have completely separate successor plan rules. See Reg 1.403(b)-10(a): can't do another 403(b) but no restriction on a 401. The (k) rule is at 1.401(k)-1(d)(4) which you'll find deals solely with a successor after terminating a (k) plan (so not relevant to your terminating (b) plan). Probably. I'm confident they can rollover a loan offset and am mostly certain they can rollover the loan note (NOTE: a loan note (as opposed to a loan offset), per Reg 1.401(a)(31)-1 Q&A-16 can only be rolled to a 401(a) trust or a 403(a), not to a 403(b); but you're coming from a 403(b) to a 401(a) trust). Reg 1.402(c )-2 Q&A-2 includes a 403(b) in the definition of an "eligible retirement plan". Reg 1.402(c )-2 Q&A-9 discusses the rollover of a plan loan offset to an "eligible retirement plan". And 1.401(a)(31)-1 Q&A-16 also discusses the rollover of a plan loan offset. You should backtrack the applicability of 401(a)(31), 402(c ) and 72(p) to 403(b) plans. You should start in Reg 1.403(b)-7 and work from there. I'm pretty sure it all cross-references. EDIT: I also wonder but didn't look if anything in 403(b) restricts the nature of distributions such that a loan note could not be distributed.

I respectfully disagree w/ the conclusion that a non-ERISA 403(b) plan cannot be terminated. From the preamble of TD 9430: "Termination of a Section 403(b) Plan The final regulations adopt the provisions of the 2004 proposed regulations permitting an employer to amend its section 403(b) plan to eliminate future contributions for existing participants, and allowing plan provisions that permit plan termination and a resulting distribution of accumulated benefits, with the associated right to roll over eligible rollover distributions to an eligible retirement plan, such as an individual retirement account or annuity (IRA). Comments on the rules in the 2004 proposed regulations regarding plan termination were favorable. In general, the distribution of accumulated benefits is permitted under these regulations only if the employer (taking into account all entities that are treated as a single employer under section 414 on the date of the termination) does not make contributions to any section 403(b) contract that is not part of the plan during the period beginning on the date of plan termination and ending 12 months after distribution of all assets from the terminated plan. However, if at all times during the period beginning 12 months before the termination and ending 12 months after distribution of all assets from the terminated plan, fewer than 2 percent of the employees who were eligible under the section 403(b) plan as of the date of plan termination are eligible under the alternative section 403(b) contract, the other section 403(b) contract is disregarded. In order for a section 403(b) plan to be considered terminated, all accumulated benefits under the plan must be distributed to all participants and beneficiaries as soon as administratively practicable after termination of the plan. A distribution for this purpose includes delivery of a fully paid individual insurance annuity contract." Note that nothing in this nor in Reg 1.403(b)-10(a) precludes a non-ERISA plan from being terminated.

1) It has nothing to do w/ ACA. It's been this way since HSAs started on January 1, 2004. 2) No, you do not qualify for an HSA if you are covered by an HMO. See page 3 of IRS Pub 969. You cannot have an HSA if you have health coverage other than an HDHP except what is discussed under "Other health coverage" on page 4. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/p969--2013.pdf

So who else has the client checked with to see if they would act as a conduit? What about their bank (you know, the bank where the client has their business checking account, most banks do IRA accounts)? What about the trustee of the new 401(k)? I suspect the new trustee, like most trustees, would make reasonable effort to get more assets.

Document your facts now so they're easier to recall in 6 months. Have the client write up a paragraph to aid his recollection. If there's a reason for why the audit report came in last minute (other than client was slow in getting documents to the auditor) then make a note of that as well. The "story" you're going to tell in an abatement request is how you got to the last moment and then why the last moment crisis was indeed a crisis that necessitated putting other business matters aside.

I keep wondering if someone either misunderstood or took out of context a sentence such as this one: "Matching contributions and forfeitures may not be allocated to a designated Roth account." which is merely saying what Lou said above, that match is never Roth and must go into a different account in the plan. http://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/Designated-Roth-Accounts---Contributing-to-a-Designated-Roth-Account It's a hard subject to google but the only place I found making the incorrect statement was on about.com which is a notoriously unreliable website.

My first thought is if the company has a good relationship w/ their banker, the bank might be willing to accept the contribution check and then issue rollovers in a quick and mostly painless manner. It's where I would start. Question: To clarify, this was a SIMPLE IRA plan under 408(p), and not a SIMPLE 401(k) plan under 401(k)(11)? I'm uncertain from reading IRC 408(q) whether a deemed IRA under that section could receive the SIMPLE employer match or nonelective contribution. Not sure if you could restrict such an account to only accepting SIMPLE contributions.

Perhaps this pdf? Item 7 on page 58: http://www.wickenslaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Handout-OSBA-Demystirying-Employer-Retirement-Plans-Dec-2013.pdf I wonder if the writer had a source other than the EOB. I don't have access to the EOB to compare. Given item 8 references 2004, it conceivably could be any time in the past decade or more. Edit: my guess is it was probably after the issuance of TD 9169 http://www.irs.gov/irb/2005-05_IRB/ar06.html

So at what point does something like a Blue Book become unreliable? Or do you contend it was never entirely reliable? I agree w/ your point that it's 32 years old and a fair amount of guidance has been issued in the interim. What is your observation on record keeping software and the extent to which various vendors have programmed their software to accommodate the process of capping the number of payments on a 5-year loan to the extent the delay between loan date and first payment pushes the payment schedule past the 5-year anniversary date?

That's interesting and slightly disturbing. The IRS seems to be taking a "letter of the law" approach on a number of things lately what with this and the Bobrow tax court case on IRA rollovers. I wonder if they're moving to ignore all legislative intent or just when it's moderately old (TEFRA was 1982).

1) I agree with Bird. If you want to pursue a more aggressive position, that's your decision to make. At the end of the day, you'll be one who has to defend it to the IRS. 2) I found an older thread w/ a reference to the TEFRA "Blue Book". I finally tracked that document down. https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=2381 My take away from it (see page 296) is if the first periodic payment is made w/in 2 months of when the loan is made, then the 5 year amortization rule will commence from when the first payment is due. Otherwise, the 5 years starts from the loan date and payment schedule must provide the last payment is made by that anniversary date, otherwise you fail the requirement and the loan is a distribution.

In researching a new question, I happened on this thread again and finally followed up completely on pmacduff's reference to the TEFRA "Blue Book". Below is a link to that document. My take away is if the first periodic payment is within 2 months of the loan date then the 5-year amortization starts from the first payment's due date. Otherwise it starts from the loan origination date and a payment schedule that extends beyond that will violate the amortization requirement and therefore be a distribution. https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=2381