david rigby

For those without a copy, here is Gray Book 95-8: QUESTION 1995-8 Funding -- Contribution Due Date if Occurs on Non-Business Day When the filing date of a tax or plan return would fall on a Saturday, Sunday or Public holiday, IRC 7503 provides that the due date is extended until the next business day. Does such extension also apply to the due dates for contributions under IRC 412? For example, April 15, 1995 falls on a Saturday? This issue has become even more relevant under the RPA, since a 10% excise tax can be imposed on a quarterly liquidity requirements that is only one day late. RESPONSE: The grace period for weekends and holidays found in code section 7503 applies only with respect to filing, not with respect to contributions. Also, minimum funding is not only a Code provision but also an ERISA Title I issue. Title I does not include provision comparable to Code section 7503, so even if the weekend rule did apply to the Code minimum funding requirement, it does not apply to the similar requirements in ERISA Title I. Copyright © 1995, Enrolled Actuaries Meeting All rights reserved by Enrolled Actuaries Meeting. Permission is granted to print or otherwise reproduce a limited number of copies of the material on the CD-ROM for personal, internal, classroom, or other instructional use, on the condition that the foregoing copyright notice is used so as to give reasonable notice of the copyright of the Enrolled Actuaries Meeting. This consent for free limited copying without prior consent of the Enrolled Actuaries Meeting does not extend to making copies for general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for inclusion in new collective works, or for sale or resale.

transfer of assets is irrelevant. ownership of assets is relevant.

Some other perspective (ie, Sal Tripodi) sees this as a gray area. See the discussion of "Weekend/Holiday Rule" in the ERISA Outline Book (for example, begins on page 1A.215 of the 2011 edition). In particular, see paragraph B.1.a "IRS informal ruling on minimum funding deadline".

BTW, about an hour after the IRS emailed Notice 2012-61, they sent another email with a Revised version. To verify that you have the correct one, look at the last page: should be three footnotes. (As of this writing, I don't have a link, but we'll probably get one within a couple of days.)

1.415(b)-1(a)(5)(ii)

Not sure I would describe the SSA service as "nominal expense".

http://benefitslink.com/src/irs/notice-12-61.pdf

A partial termination is (generally) a facts and circumstances test. First, the IRS presumes all terminations during the appropriate time frame are subject to the deemed vesting requirement. Second, the plan sponsor has the ability to document other facts that might exclude some of those terminations. For example, an employee who died (but this might trigger 100% vesting anyway). 1. Since a partial termination (usually) provides only 100% vesting, the appropriate notification is that which you would provide another VT. 2. If your "event" begins this week, it need not be retroactive to the beginning of the year, and can extend into a subsequent PY. Several prior discussion threads on this topic, which you can find using the Search feature.

Most practitioners already are aware of the arbitrary nature of things that come out of DC. Still, it's nice that the court said so.

...yet.

Data as of 31-AUG-12 (Friday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 3.36 3.36 Aa 3.50 3.48 3.49 A 3.86 3.88 3.87 Baa 4.73 4.82 4.78 Avg 4.03 3.89 3.96 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 0.44 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.07 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 2.23

Original post stated "...pull $12k from the 2 HCEs accounts..." Of course, you cannot remove something from a participant's account, once properly allocated.

http://benefitslink.com/src/irs/revproc2012-35.pdf

Effective after 08/31/2012, the IRS will no longer permit its letter forwarding progam to be used by plan administrators seeking to locate missing participants. Rev. Proc. 2012-35.

Court of Appeals upholds the District Court: http://www.mhco.com/Library/Articles/2012/...ont_083012.html

...depending on what the plan says.

Would this be (or have the potential to be) discriminatory? If so, perhpas you can amend the plan to include quarterly valuations for all participants. Or, make it daily.

Where is Ned Ryerson? At age 30, with "another baby on the way", your primary concern should be protection for your family. That probably means get as much term life as you can afford, and leave behind your whole life policy. Think about why we have insurance, and you'll quickly realize that you don't need the same level of insurance at age 70 that you need now.

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=246780,00.html

Look at 4006(a)(3)(E)(iv). I think it is unchanged by MAP21, and no change is needed.

It might be both. Clearly, no 2010 contribution can be allocated to employees who were not participants (we're assuming the PY=CY) in the 2010 PY. But this is 2012; why are we discussing a 2010 PY contribution? Might be some other relevant facts?

See article beginning on page 5. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/rne_sum06.pdf#page=5

Released 08/16/12 http://benefitslink.com/src/irs/notice2012-55.pdf

Caution. It may not be a wash. There may be a fee charged by the IRA custodian. And there might also be a fee charged for payment from that account.

There are other ways of locating people. Friends, relatives, former co-workers, internet search services. Also, consider that this person might know of the overpayment and is intentionally "making himself scarce". If so, locating him might be the easiest part of collecting.