david rigby

... and if the plan is not clear, it's time to make sure it's amended.

Good grief. Why not just amend the plan to make it clear (at least prospectively)?

Neither 411 nor 417 will have any effect on a NQ plan's requirement w/r/t spousal consent. Neither will inhibit the plan in including or excluding or changing such provision. The plan itself might include a provision that could affect (yes, that is the correct word) the ability to change any such provision.

BTW, this discussion points out the inconsistencies in this area. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/52072-2011-contribution-deadline-91512-or-91712/?hl=holiday#entry225396

It isn't the deduction that is relevant, since $$ coming out of the plan will come back into his income. It's the permanent exemption from FICA tax. (But hey, I'm not giving tax advice.)

BTW, it may be useful to re-read IRC 4980 to make sure no special conditions apply (eg, bankruptcy). If the one-man company can establish a DC plan to receive the excess, that may eliminate the excise tax entirely. See also Rev. Ruling 2003-85. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-irbs/irb03-32.pdf

A few prior similar discussion threads. Try the Search feature. My recollection is that the IRS permits the "next business day" rule for a filing (eg, form 1040 or form 5500), but it does not apply to other due dates.

Increase benefit, up to 415 limit? Cover someone else (perhaps spouse)? I forget: is there any reason why you can't have a one-person qualifed replacement plan?

The due date for the SSA is triggered by the 5500, but that does not make it part of the 5500. File it.

Data as of 31-JUL-14 (Thursday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 4.15 4.15 Aa 4.15 4.21 4.18 A 4.21 4.34 4.28 Baa 4.69 4.81 4.75 Avg 4.35 4.38 4.37 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 1.30 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 2.04 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 3.04

Follow the terms of the plan, which probably does not anticipate a second election, for anyone. However, if the governing authority (maybe the corporate Board of Directors, for example) wants to permit a new election, such election can be created via plan amendment. The plan should seek advice from ERISA counsel on how (or whether) to do this (discrimination? precedent?, etc.)

Agree. As long as the 415 limit is not violated, the simplest action is to amend the plan to increase benefits, thus "using up" the excess.

Don't forget to read IRC 411(e)(2).

Perhaps legal counsel can provide a description of where to "find the language"?

Are you saying the 5500 was filed with a non-zero asset but it really was zero?

Consider that the counting of hours for IRC 410 and 411 was put in ERISA precisely to avoid this situation.

Somewhat oversimplified: Non-discrimination regs permit discrimination against, or among, HCEs. But check the plan document to verify that it does not have any conflicting provisions.

While address and SSN are required information, putting them in a public document like a QDRO is an unwise action. It's pretty simple to communicate that information in a letter. Everyone deserves privacy.

Is there anything in the plan that might interfere with the naming of a non-natural person as beneficiary?

"The HR person was not told he was the Plan Administrator - the RFP from the investment professional name him as such..." Why would anyone think the RFP is an official plan document? Why would anyone think the investment professional has any authority in this matter? Most likely, the RFP format had a blank line and the investment professional completed it as simply as possible.

Agree with prior comments. I'm not sure the plan document and/or adoption agreement could legitimately specify the valuation date (as most actuaries use that term). The ValDate is part of the plan's funding method (not to be confused with a "funding policy"). It's not a plan provision.

Don't forget the (admittedly unlikely) circumstance where the plan credits partial (or whole) accrual with less than 1000 hours. I think that could permit a last day rule.

The hold on the account is triggered by some notification, but it's not permanent. This is where the procedures come in.

... and the plan's QDRO procedures say what?

Yep, My 2 Cents is correct. Thanks for correcting my date. (I can do actuarial math, but apparently can't count to 3.)