BG5150

A few answers for you (in no particular order) Hardships are not eligible for rollover, therefore withholding is optional, and 10% must be taken absent a contrary election. Check the plan document to see if a partial in-service withdrawal maybe done. If it must be a full withdrawal, there probably is no provision that it all has to be a rollover or all has to be taken in cash. The participant can take the expenses in cash and roll the rest over. Over 59 1/2, both distributions are taxed as ordinary income. 20% w/h on in-service and optional (10% standard) on h'ships. How can someone afford the taxes on a hardship if no w/h is done? It's one thing the participant must take into account before they take the distribution. Budgeting for medical expenses is an unfortunate necessity for many Americans. Does this person have access to a medical FSA at work? Perhaps they could divert a little income a month to that account. It's like tax-free medical care.

They can't issue a corrected 1099-R if the participant returns the money? Who's fault was the second RMD? Participant, administrator, carrier?

On the actual EZ form it says that it is "open for public inspection." How does the general public go about seeing the EZ forms?

He does not have to take the RMD. However, if he retires later in the year, he has an impermissible contribution to his IRA and the trust should issue 2 1099's--one for the rollover and one for the RMD.

And maybe find a provider that will keep track of that stuff? Or is it standard practice not to track it at all?

To me, it's not zero deferrals, it's the null set, as there is no opportunity to defer. There simply is no denominator. I look at it this way: Will the IRS take a second look if you took the person out of the test? Probably not. Will they take a second look with an all zeros test? Maybe. Do I want to take that chance? Do I leave it up to the Client? To be honest, I've done it both ways, under client direction.

Is the participant clamoring for this money? Why not just leave it alone?

I would say not in 410 at all either. Not just not benefiting, but excluded altogether.

I think the EOB recommends keeping him out, but don't quote me on that.

The 2013 ADP test (in this case) is run with the 2012 NHCE numbers. The "new" company wasn't in the plan in 2012, so those people aren't in the test. Their 2013 figures will be in the 2014 test.

Well, the EGTRRA restatement didn't take affect until 2008 at the earliest. In 2007, the GUST doc was in effect.

Whose job is it to monitor the YTD total? What if you switch jobs? At $20 a pay, it would seem tough to keep track all the time.

They can, but you have to provide a paper copy if they ask for it.

5500 is due 7 months after the end of the month when assets were distributed, so I would use that date. Is there any place else you would use that date?

So, even though this is aimed at people not covered my an employer plan, it's still incumbent upon the employer to participate in the program.

I'd say 11/30

One of the reasons given was the low cost for entry to a myRA. You can start with as little as $25. What IRA provider is going to open up one for $25? Can you make payroll deductions to an IRA? You can with a myRA.

This just in: US Govn't announces its myRA conduit IRA Rollover product. Thing is, this new IRA has a choice of two investments: a US Postal Service or Amtrack bond. Send a letter or take a train ride and help your account to profitability!

Keep reading. From EOB:

Some outlets refer to it as the State of the Union Speech

For non-ERISA plans, is it incumbent upon the employer to find a vendor who will do that? Or, is it the vendors responsibility to either do it, or find someone who will. From the "Governmental & Tax Exempt Plans" study module from ASPPA: (my emphasis)

Is there a Service Agreement in place?

ASPPA's big disagreement with the SOTUS is that the President disparaged the current retirement system really only benefited the rich, that they were "upside down retirement tax incentives." I wholeheartedly agree. President Bush went down a similar avenue, albeit it had to do with supplementing/changing the Social Security system. First it was Lifetime Savings Accounts in 2003, then Individual Investment Accounts in 2005. Both ideas went no where.

Short answer: no. There are no retroactive deferrals for periods a person was not eligible. Again, the 1% minimum (and the 90% maximum) is on a per payroll basis, not an aggregate for the year.

From what I remember, the only time the 5 yr BIS comes into play for excluding service is if the plan has the Rule of Parity: Parity BIS rule: if EE (1) is plan participant; (2) is 0% vested; (3) incurs 5 consecutive BIS, plan permanently may disregard EE’s prior service So, unless this person was 0% vested, the rule probably doesn't apply.