Draper55

Wife has a solo 401k that goes over 250k. In the same year the husband starts a solo 401k for his unrelated business. Husband and wife have a minor child, so they form a controlled group as I understand it. The EZ instructions say that all plans of the employer must file the form if the combined assets are over $250,000. My thought is that the husband must file as well. Wondering if others agree.

You could also terminate the plan before 4/30/2020 adopting any required amendments for 2019 and 2020(if needed) and call it a day..

I don't think the list of requirements for a DRO to be a QDRO include an accurate reflection of the parties intent as expressed in the language of the MSA. I am not a lawyer but I think ERISAAPLE is of the right mind in this regard...

I think you reduce from normal to age 48 in your example per the reg...If the participant had quit on the day of death how would you calculate the J&S?..I think the QPSA reduction would mirror that approach...

1. Suppose a traditional defined benefit plan prior to restatement for PPA'06 has actuarial equivalence for optional forms other than lump sums as 7.5% UP84 and for lump sums the greater of 417(e) and 5.5% with applicable mortality. Is it a cutback to restate the Plan with the lump sum now being the greater of 7.5% UP84 and 417(e)?. If it is a cutback must the AB on the restatement date merely be maintained and the PVAB at 5.5%/applicable be computed as an additional lump sum floor on ultimate distribution or does the document also need to spell this out? 2. Similarly if the AE basis is changed from 7.5%UP84 to say 5.5% IRS applicable what are the cutback implications for optional forms other than lump sums and early/late ret factors( admin and doc language)? Thank you for any comments...

I believe this screws up 401(l). A person with one year going to two would exceed the maximum disparity in one year for an excess plan(2%/1%). I think you would need to general test..

what would the damages be to not receiving one..loss of peace of mind not knowing you won't receive anything else from the plan?

412216591 if you need assistance with solok...usually very straightforward plans..

agree with Effen what does the document say; but, I would think being post ASD with the annuity election in place is too late..suppose participant had bad accident or bad health diagnosis post 6/1..aren't you now letting him select against the plan by taking the lump sum?

some documents are written with no rollovers under $500 so in such case clearly no notice is required.

If you do not impute permitted disparity changing tables will not do anything for you..

I do not have recent experience as such but I think the optional forms including the definition of actuarial equivalence tag along with the accrued benefit so the insurance company will price that into to the contract. Having worked at insurance company initially there was an assortment of terms such margins, retention, risk stabilization, surplus, contingency etc. to virtually "insure" a profit; I am sure you will pay for all potential disbursements.

If the plan has a loan provision then maybe you would want it in the db plan versus an IRA. Further, some people just like having all there money in one place. Also, many IRAs have an annual fee which can be avoided by having the money in the db plan...Doesn't the document say when a participant can access their rollover account?

depends entirely on the document language. your post states the plan is frozen but not terminated? how are you making distributions if it is only frozen? note that the five year averaging period on the termination date in the reg examples is the most recent five year crediting periods and not the 60 months ending prior to the termination date. I think it would be better to use the 60 months with an appropriate time weighting.

my recollection is conversion of an existing 401(k) to a safe harbor is not permitted but other qualified plans could be converted up to 10/1 which is the minimum period for a new 401k safe harbor plan. Since the 457b is not a qualified plan I do no think there is any formation impact.

suppose you compute the first rmd for a 5% owner on a 4.99% increasing life annuity basis. Does this imply that all subsequent year accruals should also be expressed as 4.99% increasing life annuity amounts determined at the end of the respective plan years when the additional accruals are measured?.

Thanks for the 2014 grey book post..I had guessed the correct answer although I had not nearly a creative enough of a mind to come up with 4 possible other ways to do it. The response item at the end of the answer is the issue in a nutshell. Actually, I had read the 2104 grey book a while back but clearly this response did not stay on my personal hard drive.

The 2007 415 regs state the 415$ limit post 65 is the lessor of the age 62-65 $limit increased by the lessor of the statutory factors or the ratio of the (benefit at the asd)/(benefit at age 65)* 62-65$ limit. the "benefit" used is to be exclusive of post 65 accruals. Suppose someone enters the Plan at 65. then this second ratio at any asd will be 0/0. If this ratio is 1 then there is no adjustment to the $ limit post age 65 since 1 is less than the statutory increase. If it is infinite(/0) then we use the statutory(5%&applicable qx)increase since it is clearly the lessor. Alternatively, is the reg just poorly written since in all thereg examples the participant had an accrual at 65; so just use the lessor of the plan's ae and the statutory basis which is what seems to make sense and what everyone has espoused for years? Note the 10 yr reduction would of course apply thru 74 and am not considering here forms other than a straight life annuity.

Suppose I have a one person defined benefit plan. The owner is in the 55-62 age zone. If he wanted to draw his pension but not terminate the plan could he stop working for company x and start working for a newly formed company y? Company y does not enter into any kind of joinder or participation agreement regarding the plan of company x. In other words, is retirement on a controlled group basis or can it be viewed purely from the standpoint of the plan sponsor. I realize many of the rules we apply are on a controlled group basis but was wondering if this a valid scheme

I have several clients in the IRMA affected area. The IRS release grants relief wrt to the otherwise applicable mrc timing (i.e. 8.5 months after the close of the plan year) to 1/31/2018 and likewise for the 9/30/2017 AFTAP certification. I assume though, that the discounting of contributions to the relevant valuation date would still be from the date the contribution is made (i.e. ,9/15/17-1/31/2018) is not a interest discounting free zone). Anyone disagree?

thanks for your insightful reply...The investment losses..Doctor plan..need I say more? I see the answer now in 1.430(d)-1(c)(1)(iii)(D). The funding target as of the valuation date reflects the ftap in effect at the val date which in this case is over still over 60%(drops below 60% on 4/1). Subsequent funding targets if ftaps under 60% at the val dates will reflect accruals according to whether the restoration clause is in the plan's 436 language. It is not in place in my plan. Oddly, the normal cost is not to reflect the 436(e) provision in any event;it takes a plan freeze to shutoff the normal costs..

I have a plan that had a large prior year asset lost. It is a beginning of the year valuation. Actuarial assets<.6*FT. Does this imply in the absence of additional contributions before 10/1 to achieve a 60% FTAP that there is no normal cost for the plan year due to the 436 accrual restriction? I think so but don't do that many boy vals.

i had thought about something similar such as moot or pointless AFTAP; but since the number still exists on the schedule SB maybe it warrants a separate certification..... but, what exactly is it that I would be certifying?

Traditional db overfunded with eoy valuations terminates during 2016 and val date is moved to plan termination date. assume no cb or conts for simplicity. What would you call assets/(ft+nc) as of the val date if you were doing a separate aftap certification?; 2017 aftap? plan termination aftap? final aftap?..val date and thereafter aftap?

it is because the IRS thinks the time before certain participants came into the plan to satisfy 401(a)(26) must be included in their benefit amounts. Originally they claimed it was a brf issue under 401(a)(4)..I argued that it was an amount issue in prior years and had nothing to do with brfs. They dropped that angle and are now saying it that in switching from the gust(period during which said participants entered the plan) to the egtrra document it is a 411(d)(6) issue which is also incorrect. Unfortunately the attorney who created the GUST document is no longer around so I am left to defend an historical issue on a 2014 plan year audit.