david rigby

Have you considered providing "proof" of the few years available, and then saying, "that's all folks"?

Uh-oh.

Possibly faulty memory: the IRS has stated that the cash-out limit can be changed, up or down, anytime as long as you keep it under $5K. It would be prudent to verify in the regulation.

If "we" is a TPA/recordkeeper, I'm not sure that you get to decide who to charge. Doesn't the plan and/or Plan Administrator make that decision?

By (1), I mean there is no requirement that the receiving IRA be an inherited IRA (assuming I understand the question correctly).

I'll take a stab at this: 1. No. 2. No, unless the beneficiary is already a participant in the 401k plan (eg, an employee).

Hybrid plan reg (Internal Revenue Bulletin 2014-41, 10/06/14). http://www.irs.gov/irb/2014-41_IRB/ar07.html Scroll down to Reg. 1.411(a)(13)-1(b)(2)(ii) to see a list of permitted reductions. There is no "fee" or "expense" included in this list.

Might the "rollovers as business start-up" discussion be useful? http://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/Employee-Plans-Compliance-Unit-(EPCU)-Completed-Projects-Project-with-Summary-Reports-–-Rollovers-as-Business-Start-Ups-(ROBS)

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rr-02-45.pdf

Reg. 1.401(a)(4)-5(b)(3). I did not see any such exemption listed. However, see the language in (b)(1), which refers to "...discriminating significantly in favor of HCEs...". For that matter, see the language at the beginning of the (a)(4) reg and IRC 401(a)(4) itself. All of (a)(4) is concerned with HCEs vs NHCEs. If a plan covers only one of those categories, does that mean there is no discrimination? Perhaps this topic is addressed in writing somewhere else (it's not in the Gray Book), but this seems like a regulation that does not apply to the plan described in the original post. I stand ready to read/consider other information.

Methinks you should expect the attorney to suggest the situation is bigger than an hour's time

Isn't this a matter for how state tax law is structured? (ie, not related to federal tax law)

Shocking. Please keep us informed as you find out more information about this.

Yeah, not sure what's the problem. However, scroll to the bottom of the page and click "More Reply Options".

Here is a version of that spreadsheet in Excel 97-2003. TPF&C 1971 MortalityTable.xls

Data as of April 30, 2015 (Thursday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 3.74 3.74 Aa 3.79 3.85 3.82 A 3.93 4.07 4.00 Baa 4.67 4.62 4.65 Avg 4.13 4.07 4.10 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 1.11 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.71 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 2.52

I was recently asked for a copy of the 1971 TPF&C table. I have inherited a spreadsheet that contains something with that label, although I cannot verify. Anyone able to verify the attached? TPF&C 1971 MortalityTable.xlsx

Courtesy is not a requirement, but it might be a good reason.

Correct. Cite is Reg. §1.415(a)-1(f)(7). (My comment was based on the possibility that the plan might not have the suspension language.)

I wonder if there might be a plan violation: since no more could accrue (due to 415), and the EE was at least NRA, does the plan require commencement of the benefit? Whether annuity or otherwise?

Don't look for trouble. You've identified this "event", and done the only thing necessary: award 100% vesting to affected participants. (Of course, all such participants get treated just like any other VT under the plan, which may or may not be a distributable event.) You're done. BTW, don't ever assume that a "partial termination" is really a "termination". For all practical purposes, the only issues are vesting and documentation.

Likely not all the questions to ask, here are a few: - Stock or asset transaction? - Merger or acquisition? Is company A buying B, or is A merging with B to form a new company C, or something else? - What happens to the plans on the day after the transaction? - Are the plans merged? - Does the transaction change the plans themselves in any way? - Etc.

It's possible your question is answered in Reg. 1.401(l)-2(d). Of course, the 401(l) regs are safe harbor provisions, which might not apply to your plan. Hey, I'm no expert; there could be a different applicable reg.

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/24056-llm-in-employee-benefits/

Existing plan might have something similar to 411d6 protection. Yes, govt. plans are exempt, but not if the plan includes such provision. Adoption of a new plan might include some provision that violates the "anti-cutback" language in the current plan.