BG5150

I think you can always get rid of the brokerage accounts. That's not a protected benefit.

As an aside: the daughter was adopted, right? Otherwise, we are to assume she gave birth at 62! Has anyone checked with the current occupants of the apartment? Maybe they know where the participant moved to.

Why not just leave them there to offset (and maybe completely cover) the next remittance?

I think you are over-thinking this a bit. You don't have a new plan, just a different plan document. I would certainly have the new plan document effective at the same time or before the money is transferred from Fidelity (because of the brokerage account). Unless the basis of the Employer contribution changes, I doubt it would matter under which document it was made. I would produce a blackout notice and have it in the file. This way, the owner isn't going to try to sue anybody if he comes across that once-in-a-lifetime investment opportunity during the blackout that he wasn't allowed to get into. Is there going to be more than one brokerage account for each source? Or are you going to value the money sources once a year or so?

Maybe impress upon the laggard what the penalties are for a late filing.

We just got one. And we didn't report anything on the 2011 5500 as being late. (We didn't have all the data available to make that determination)

$300,000

I just removed it. The left-right thing has always been there. Soon, there should be a "QPA" in there, too. I'm trying to think up something witty to steal from someone to replace the stupid question sayjng. (Well, at least someone was looking at my signature! Thanks for noticing.)

Her you go: http://www.relius.net/Events/seminardetail.aspx?EID=26180

...or you amend the document to allow the discretionary match on top of the SH match. The SH match will get you out of ADP. The SH match will get you out of ACP. The SH match + a restricted discretionary match will get you out of ACP. The SH match + discretionary match above the restricted formulae, you need to do ACP test. But, the document has to allow for it. Is it too late to amend for 2013? maybe not.

If almost half of the employees make less than $34,000 not one of them could ever hit the $17,000 mark.

What would happen if Mr. Charged took 50% in January and that was it?

A closer read shows: "Such Participant's benefit shall be payable, in cash or in-kind, in one lump sum payment." (emphasis mine) So, I guess it's all-or-nothing. But are the terms codified anywhere?

I believe you can distribute the account once it goes below $5k again. But to what lengths to do go to accomplish that? As TPA, I don't think it's part of my job to check it every day. David, when did the "if ever over $5,000" rule change? I remember hearing about it, but it was at a time when I was doing (pretty much) customer service work, and wasn't much in tune with the regs.

What's the difference between a "lump sum" distribution and a "single sum" distribution?

Lately a gimmick has been for companies to scan the 5500 universe and look for plans that don't have 2F (an ERISA 404© plan) and send a letter scaring the employer into thinking they aren't "compliant". I can see a whole new level of this deception: You are not compliant. Evidently, your preparer ABC company isn't doing its job.

^^ I thought that changed somewhere. In a daily-valued plan, how would you know if the account was ever over $5,000? If I have someone with $4,870 in the account today, would I have to go back, day-to-day to see if it was ever over $5,000? How far back to do I go?

Look to EPCRS, Appendix A, sec. .05 (5). It's a failure to implement an employee election. She said take 5% of my [eligible] pay. The ER took 4.89% of her [eligible] pay.

But what is the 2012 RMD basis? There was no balance on 12/31/11.

every day? time to move platforms?

Can't the sponsor set it up so the fees get billed to the employer and not the participants to avoid this?

So, if you start a business (or buy into a business) after the year you turn 70 1/2, you don't have to take an RMD because you weren't a 5% owner the year you turned 70.5?

Nope. (BTW, I'm studying for mine too. I highly recommend Derrin Watson's web seminar from Relius (Sungard/Corbel/whatever other company they are, too). I attended for Part I and it really helped focus on what I really needed to study for the test. The EOB delves into so many contingencies and arcana, that it's not the best study guide. The Part II webinar should be announced this week some time I believe.)

Our document provider wasn't too keen on doing that. By discriminating against one (or more HCE's) you were in turn discriminating in favor of the others who had no such restriction.

Would that matter?