GMK

I totally agree, but for whatever it's worth, annuities for 401(k)'s now appear to be a reality: http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20141125/FREE/141129956/broker-dealers-sound-off-as-aig-leads-off-with-first-annuity-for-401

If memory serves, those two turkeys, Smith and Jones, deserved a proper execution, and then to be (slightly) burned at the stake and after knocking the stuffing out of them, dismembered, too. Happy Thanksgiving, Pilgrim, and everyone.

I haven't heard of any. I think the concern for plans, and probably for target date fund providers, is the question of what happens if the insurance company folds before the participants who have dumped their money into the annuity investment retire. Who's left holding the fiduciary bag and gets sued big-time?

But, Tom, if you halve that client, won't you need to set up separate accounts, giving to one what's right, and the other gets what's left? ... he said on an otherwise boring snowy afternoon.

ugh. Is that how we get partial patients, spread out over ... ?

Does your plan document allow persons who are not participants in the plan to do a rollover contribution into the plan?

See responses at duplicate posting: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/56551-one-person-llc-w1-employee-solo-401k/#entry247432

Implicit in this is that all these people are not merely independent, but that they are good at what they do and understand their relevance to the ESOP transaction. The key is ESOP Guy's good appraisal done with realistic projections.

I'd suggest hiring a firm to provide the documents. A POP doesn't cost much, and then you know the paperwork is right. After that, it's easy. Just have to make sure that payroll keeps the pre-tax part separate from the after-tax part of employees' pay. If possible, an automatic enrollment is easier (employees become participants whenever they are eligible for the health coverage). In this mode, employees must be offered the opportunity to waive participation.

^depends on when the company takes him off the payroll, e.g., was he eligible for holiday pay for January 1? Also, some companies require employees to be at work (and not on vacation or sick leave) on their last day ... and like that.

Is there any way to determine which of any two investment advisors is better? That's a serious question. What kinds of data are available to compare the results of the advice of the two very nice people you are considering as an advisor for your plan?

Got it. Thanks, again. More interesting than I thought.

For example, the IRA owner turns 70-1/2 in 2011, does not take an MRD's, and dies in 2014. The IRA beneficiary takes the owner's MRD for 2014, but the MRD's for 2011, 2012, and 2013 have to be taken as payments to the deceased owner, becoming part of the decedent's estate and distributed according to the decedent's will (so the charity may get what's left of those RMD's after the excise tax is paid from the estate). After the MRD's are paid, the remainder of the IRA balance goes to the IRA beneficiary, the child. Is that how it goes?

Thanks for the clarification. I believe it (because you said it), but is there a cite? The one or two articles I have found that discuss "prior due" MRD's going to the beneficiary must have been referring to cases like the first year an MRD is required but not taken until the next year. That is, cases where the decedent was not already past the deadline for taking the MRD. Interesting ...

Thanks, Bird. I saw the "s" here so often, I lost track of which is correct.

What happened to the "s" at the end of the name? Is there only one now?

As I understand it, the beneficiary of the IRA receives the RMD's that are or were due for the years up to and including the year in which the IRA holder died. Assuming the child was designated as the beneficiary of the IRA on the IRA's beneficiary designation form, the child beneficiary receives the IRA benefits and receives the RMD's. It does not appear from the wording above that the child is the beneficiary because the child was named in the will (and not because of the IRA's beneficiary designation form), but if that is the case, then the IRA beneficiary is the default beneficiary in the IRA policy, which might be the estate or might be the child or whatever the policy says. The will cannot designate the beneficiary of the IRA. Sorry, don't have cites at hand.

Frankly, I don't have a problem with that, but then our plan has immediate 100% vesting. Depends on your workforce, turnover rates, etc. It's a choice.

I prefer to have NRA simply be an age, regardless of years of service, and then define vesting, etc. separately. As FGC suggests, how you define NRA may or may not of much consequence, depending on what you want the Plan to say will happen to participants when they reach their NRA.

If I joined the plan 4 years ago and separated from employment 2 years ago, never to return, I will never have 5 years of participation, so I'll never reach NRA under choice 1. Under the same conditions, I would eventually reach NRA under choice 2.

Hear, Hear! Congrats, Dave.

where "he" means the father, I agree that he needs an RMD for 2014 because of the attributed ownership.

'Sup. Isn't it simply modern lingo for today's reporting. Who's going to take seriously a form called 5500-HowAreYouDoing?

ESOP Guy is correct, but the IRS notes and other references help 'splain the seemingly simple, but sometimes hard to understand statements in plan document sections. It all flushes out, but not in the first reading ... at least for me.

and this may help with that: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/epchd603.pdf