ERISAnut

No, it isn't. In this instance, she has taken a distribution (which could have been rolled over to an IRA or even spent). Therefore, this rollover takes on the characteristics of the new plan; becoming divorced from the old plan. When looking at related rollovers, you would normally think of a situation where the money is really not available for distribution to the particpant and is transferred to the other plan for housing. In such instance, the characteristics from the old plan will remain in tact. Hope this helps. I acknowlege that it is the same plan, but is treated as if it is rolled from another plan since she is spouse beneficiary instead of the actual participant with respect to those funds.

Of course he can. His overall limit, by the same principle you used, would be $20,500. So, he could simply to $10,250 in each one; and he is fine. You won't find this answer within the SIMPLE IRA rules; as each SIMPLE IRAs rules applies to that specific employer. 402(g) applies directly to the taxpayer. $15,500 plus $5,000 is what the taxpayer is allowed to do. If that comes from two SIMPLE IRAs, or $15,500 to a 401(k) and $5,000 to a Traditional IRA (assuming under the phaseout limits), then that works. Just ensure those employers aren't related.

This rule applies only when the SEP is written to an IRS Form 5305. If you wish to use the SEP with another plan, then you would need to use a SEP prototype.

Do not forget to reduce each partners 'earned income' be their respective employer contributions (which should be equal). So, as your allocations to each exceeds ($20,000), their earned income will get reduced below $80,000. The 20% is merely the front end calculation to arrive at a 25% allocation rate. So, if they each receive $30,000, their earned income will become $70,000; an allocation rate of 42.86%.

Of course he will. Earned above the HCE Comp threshold during the prior year; or was a 5% owner at any time during the current or prior year. Hope this helps.

Use Code "G" in box 7. Report the total amount rolled in box 1, the taxable amount in box 2a, and the basis recovery in box 5. Hope this helps.

The first requirement for satisfying the ACP safe harbor is that you first satisfy the ADP safe harbor. How do you satisfy the ADP safe harbor when ADP doesn't exist? I wouldn't implement a matching contribution, but instead use a nonelective if they are adverse to testing.

No, this would be a design issue, not an administration issue. An administration issue would be to make the loan approval when such application is received (in the event loans are allowed). Since loans are not allowed, there is no approval, or disapproval, to be made.

None. There is mandatory disaggregation when testing Union and Non-union. Therefore, when testing the union for coverage, no one benefits for matching.

Even Bob Architect agrees with this. This issue you just illustrated is that prior to 2009, a 403(b) cannot be 'terminated' since it is not a plan. This one premise has served to upset the entire 403(b) world. Beginning in 2009, terminating a plan would require all assets get distributed within 12 months. So, what does that say about 403(b)s that were terminated in prior years? It says that regardless of what one may believe, those arrangements were not terminated; but merely frozen. It also says that they are required to be written because they are 403(b)s that have not been terminated. However, any accounts that existed and were inactive prior to 2005, they do not have to be considered. There is a serious issue with contracts for employees after 2005; where a plan is required to be written. JSimmons, I am with you; the rules appeared to have created more problems that they solve. But, these are the rules as communicated (informally) by the IRS. I do not believe many of these are enforceable because they are impossible to comply with in many instances. However, going forward, the projection is that the industry will begin to produce products and programs to operate consistently with these rules; making 403(b)s more controllable. As it stands now, for every rule stating one thing, there is another stating the opposite.

Bob stated that while the information sharing agreement wasn't necessary for the members of the selected providers, there was still the responsiblity of each member to ensure overall compliance with the rules. As a practical matter, an information sharing agreement is among the few alternatives available to effectively ensure loan limits aren't exceeded and improper distributions aren't made. Now, for going outside the selected provider list, the information sharing agreement would be necessary in order to ensure compliance. Inside the selected provider group, such agreement is not required, but is likely the most effective mechanism to ensure compliance. So, you are right, but the ISA is just a safe guard. It is basically being over-protective since is really isn't required for members fo the selected group.

Agreed. 1000%. Some people just want to overthink the SIMPLE ...

The definition of compensation used for the SIMPLE IRA is withholding compensation. Therefore, it does not get used until it becomes subject to withholding; January 2009. Hope this helps.

When you execute a plan document, this becomes a binding agreement subject to all the rules of ERISA. Unfortunately, there is nothing you can do but a prospective amendment to be applied to future hires. Once a document is signed and communicated to employees, this creates protections that cannot be eliminated; regardless of the intent of the employer. You can try VCP, but that will likely prove more expensive that those amounts you are attempting to save. Even then, the IRS will not likely allow you to do it.

NO, he does not. While the first distributions from the plan must satisfy the RMD, in this case there is not RMD due to the beneficiary. Since the taxpayer actually died prior to the RBD, the death distribution rules effectively preempts the need to take the first Age 70.5 RMD as this was not due to begin until April 1, 2009. Now, this would be different had the RBD been reached, and another RMD would be due on January 1 of the current year, but by December 31st of that year. Therefore, the first death distribution to the beneficiary is not due until December 31, 2009 (the end of the year following the year of death) since the taxpayer died in the year he turned 70.5. I am assuming the beneficiary is the spouse, but with this particular fact pattern, it does not matter. Hope this helps.