masteff

My understanding is the allowance varies by school based on local conditions. It's a very easy phone call from the participant to the financial aid office of the school to say they're taking money from a 401(k) and need something showing what allowance that school uses for off campus living expenses. It's not an unusual request to them and they generally have a form/brochure or can run a print out that gives exactly what you're looking for. Don't forget several hundred for books and supplies. And off-campus students usually need an on-campus parking permit.

As noted in the post above, your loan should probably have been defaulted at the end of the quarter following your first missed loan payment (so about two years ago). The consequence of that would be you would have received a 1099-R and had to pay income tax on the outstanding balance at that time. Moving past that, the longest repayment period allowed for a normal 401(k) loan is 5 years (you don't mention buying a residence w/ the loan so we'll ignore that separate time limit). Assuming you had a 5 year loan to begin with, if you'd stayed at the original payment then your loan term would have been nearly 7.5 years (with the 28 month break in the middle). Question: was your break a result of military service? If so then that's another rule exception and I'd have to go look that one up to see how it would apply. Another option is that you might be able to get a temporary loan from somewhere else (bank, credit union, family member) to pay off your outstanding balance and then take a new 401(k) loan (which you use to repay the temporary loan). This gives you a fresh 5-year term. The trick would be to ask "if I pay off my loan in full right now, could I then take a new loan for X dollars and how long would it take between payoff and when the new loan could be taken".

The glass half full answer is she's being thorough and making sure nothing gets lost. So I'd start w/ a simple letter explaining that disposition of the assets was covered by the decedent's beneficiary designation form in full accordance with the plan document and Federal law and there are no assets that pass to the estate. The glass half empty answer is she'll contest that at which point you calmly suggest she confer w/ their estate attorney who can perhaps explain it better.

I believe it's covered under a class exemption: http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/Regs/ClassExemptions/ But since I'm not entirely versed on those, you should reach your own conclusion or hopefully someone else will post on this topic.

The simple (pun not entirely intended) question is whether a SIMPLE 401(k) meets the definition of "applicable retirement plan" in 402A(e)(1)(A): "an employees’ trust described in section 401 (a) which is exempt from tax under section 501 (a)"

20 employees is the magic number. Search on medicare and supplement for prior discussions. Here's when I asked about it in 2009: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=43465

Only if the plan says to. I had a plan that had restricted in-service withdrawals and required suspension despite it not being deferral source money.

Except for people who were under a 72(t) stream of substantially equal payments, our plans (for the most part) treated installments as a convenience for people eligible for partial withdrawals at will. My question are: What does the plan say? And absent the rehire, can the retiree elect to stop the installments?

All UBIT is reported on the K-1. If the 990T was done correctly, then it's the end of the discussion. My guess is your client read some two-bit article which overgeneralized the problems of owning MLPs in IRAs. I just found 5 such articles in as many minutes on the internet. These are usually by idiot writers who have the mistaken understanding that UBIT must be avoided at all costs. (Is my bias about personal finance writers showing yet?) Your client really needs to do a return on investment analysis which takes into account the UBIT tax and cost for preparing the 990T, etc., and then evaluate his MLP holdings just like any other investment (yield, growth potential, etc.).

Wow. Apparently your client is not the first to ask as the IRS specifically addresses this: http://www.irs.gov/retirement/article/0,,id=234258,00.html "IRA owners who have received their 2010 RMDs may not recontribute those distributions to an IRA to have them redistributed directly to a qualified charity as a QCD. However, if an IRA owner received a distribution in excess of his or her 2010 RMD, the owner can roll the excess to another or the same IRA within 60 days of receiving the distribution and then have the funds paid directly to the qualified charity as a QCD."

Double check your document to make sure it doesn't specify a source heirarchy that differs from what you're wanting.

I'm pretty sure that in-laws are disqualified persons making it a prohibited transaction. Aside from that real estate in a plan gets messy fast. Searching on "real estate" finds a number of prior threads. These are just a few: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=46911 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=46177 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=42640 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=44251

To clarify, you mean a 1.25" margin on all 4 sides (top/bottom/left/right)? Then I concur w/ 45% wasted on border. This can be seen in the reverse w/ computer monitors and TV screens. A 22" widescreen has 35% more viewing area than a 19" widescreen; which would seem counterintuitive since it's only a 15% increase in diagonal size. (My roommate left a 46" tv which is slowly dieing; I'm torn because I really only need a 32" but it's difference in viewing area of 107%. http://www.cavecreations.com/tv2.cgi )

Two scenarios w/ rollovers.... INTO the plan and OUT of the plan. An in-plan roth conversion is about the plan's ability to accept a rollover into the Roth account from a non-Roth source. The ability to make the rollover eligible distribution (that might then be converted) is a separate issue from the acceptance of the conversion. This next part is where I'm in the dark (having never dealt w/ the topic of distributed annuities)... 1) does the annuity have to accept rollovers into it if the distributing plan did? I'd think no because I don't think acceptance of rollovers into a plan is a protected benefit. 2) what code and regs govern the annuity after distribution? 402/402A or 408/408A? My assumption is that once distributed, the annuity is governed by 408/408A, so the subsequent ability to convert to a Roth would come automatically w/ the ability to do a rollover eligible lumpsum distribution.

I think a "not" was left out (ie, "did not waive"). An irrevocable election to not participate, if I understand it correctly, must be made on or before the date the participant gains eligibility and the plan document must provide that it can be done. Lacking that, then as rcline notes, they're eligible but not deferring and should therefore get profit share.

I'd think the $500 which hasn't been reported on loan 1 would be taxable. (but then I'm not 100% up-to-date on the regs for reporting deemed loans) Otherwise it looks fundamentally correct. Your check figure is that net cash plus withholding equals cash available for distribution.

"... When they heard about it three weeks later, the people of Mexico..."

Is the broker a fidicuary in this scenario?

funny (except of course the Titanic sank on April 15th)

I'd call it a self-correction under EPCRS (whether or not that's 100% on point), direct them to Rev Proc 2008-50 and tell them you need something more definitive than a "smell test" and their personal "comfort level". Corrections are sometimes messy but necessary to fix an error such as this. http://www.irs.gov/irb/2008-35_IRB/ar10.html Personally, internal and external audits who only have a passing understanding of qualified plans can be infuriating... they misread the code and then scream "disqualification" so fast and loud that management nearly panics before you can get the situation under control.

Added thought: Knowing how check signers look at dollars and not details, be sure in discussions that you're subtracting out anything paid by employees (such as supplemental and dependent coverage); that accounts for 20% of my company's bill. Also, you might be better served by shopping your rates. I know when we shop health rates and they provide life rates, they can vary by 10 to 20% from each other.

If you have employee premiums (ie, not entirely company paid), then you're probably looking at a VEBA.

Just to clarify... is this a form strictly for getting new underwriting quotes or some other type of internal use document? If it's for getting new underwriiting, I had this problem last fall and ultimately just told the insurance companies that Participant X refused to complete the form but here are the basic demographics on that person. Since 99% of participants completed the forms, we were able to get proper rate quotes despite the absent data. As I recall, our attorney advised good practice would be for employees to return their questionaires in sealed envelopes that would be given unopened to the insurance companies so that no one here could accidentally see PHI.

Question: did they fix it thru payroll in 2010 or 2011? My opinion is if it was 2010 then it's not a real problem. At my former job, we actually did this semi-commonly with minor adjustments (floating them in and out of the forf account) (w/ 2500 active employees, it was hard to avoid minor adjustments). If it was fixed via payroll in 2011 then the employee should have already had a problem preparing their taxes because any good tax software should have complained about the excess amount. One of the important things to do to CYA for an IRS or DOL audit is document clearly what happened now and document what changes in procedure have been made to prevent it happening again (like deduction limits in the payroll system).

I've seen that language (or to the effect)... as others have said, it's for automatic conformity. An excellent example is the Hurricane Katrina hardship allowed several years ago.