FormsRstillmylife

The PBGC will not take the money if you know you have a bad SS# and a false name. At least they would not take it when we were handling a DC termination. ICE had removed the employee some 10 years before and no one got his real name as he was being hauled off. No one remembers what he looked like. Dear DOL, give us a rule that works in reality.

State law, for the state of our TPA business, requires no more than 10 years for a loan not secured by real estate. We dropped that 10-year limit into the loan policy for home loans.

Perhaps they mean that the group receiving the safe harbor match fails 410? Too few contributing 401(k) to receive a match and the contributors include HCEs.

Notice 2008-113 as modified by Notice 2010-6 contains some limited relief and guidance.

My thought on reacting to knowledge of a pending divorce has been, despite the DOL not making its notice guidance an actual regulation, how far will a participant get going into court saying, "That mean Plan Administrator won't give me my money before my marital settlement is worked out!"

The partial lump sum could be rolled. It does not have to be the whole account as was required 30 + years ago. As a government plan, it is possible that it has not been updated in this century.

The Notice says the Plan seeking recoupment notifies the recipient plan and the participant of the overpayment. It states the tax consequences and how the overpayment can be transferred back without the participant incurring taxable income. What I do not see is authorization for the recipient plan to just transfer the money back without the participant's consent. Can the recipient plan transfer the funds back solely on the basis of the notice and the Notice? That is, can this be done without liability to the participant?

War Eagle!

Where are you going to find a custodian that will provide an inherited IRA without an IRA owner signature? Answer that before considering plan amendments to make this happen.

So . . . . . I am being an aggressive tax attorney and no one has tried this? It seems like it fits the intention of Notice 2014-54 to allow a simple transaction instead of multiple steps to get to the same tax result, but the Notice does not say you can.

A plan with Roth can have an in-plan rollover to the Roth account. Notice 2014-54 says an after-tax account can have its after-tax employee contributions sent to a Roth IRA and its pre-tax investment return sent to a traditional IRA. Participant does not want to pay income tax on his after-tax account in-plan rollover. Can a participant send after-tax employee contributions to the Plan's Roth Account and leave the investment return in the After-Tax Account under the plan? Is Notice 2014-54 insufficient relief such that the investment return has to be sent to a traditional IRA, instead of being left in the Plan? With the traditional IRA being rolled back into the Plan as a third step. Could the investment return just be rolled to the Plan's own rollover account (assuming all rights are preserved) in order to skip the IRA two-step dance? Assume an individually designed plan that can be drafted/amended in any legal manner for a qualified plan.

Thank you, Paul I and Peter. I was just looking for this guidance when asked about a market value adjustment assessment. I knew I remembered it. Business acquisitions can lead to unanticipated contract terminations when the acquiror's plan does not want the Stable Value Fund. If there is not a clear enough fiduciary violation, the parties may have to consider a new comparability profit sharing allocation = participant by participant contribution for those hit by the MVA subject to average benefit testing.

Upon plan termination, the PBGC will not take a missing participant account where the name is fake and the social security number is false. There was also no luck having the person whose identity was stolen to take the money. (Didn't try it, but a thought in a weak moment.) In that particular case, ICE had been called and no one thought to get the employee's real name as he was being hauled off.

Does the Custodian think it can process distributions as well? It sounds like the Custodian does not have good forms/processes for handling assets that are part of a qualified plan. We have enough issues with paper forms and web designations being coordinated without having an unauthorized third party try to collect designations.

SECURE 2.0 will have to be reviewed to see if this is now a self-correction. HCE failing to take taxable income for 5 years may still require filing versus TPA admitting it misapplied the law and never notified him.