GMK

You are correct. When this participant retires, the first portion of the distribution to him is RMD until the RMD amount for 2013 is satisfied. He can then roll the remaining balance. Q & A -7 (and maybe -8) here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.402©-2

Get clarification about the match calculation and timing from the person(s) who wrote the Plan Doc. Review post 10, above. Amend the plan, if needed, to reflect how you want to do the match.

You may find it is selected in the SH Match section under Contributions in the Adoption Agreement.

Amend the plan to match annual compensation, instead of matching per payroll comp (see post 6, above). Then when an ee hits the deferral limit, you can add the match amount each payroll or wait until the end of the year to do a one-time true up for the year, as you wish. If you do per payroll matches after the $17.5 limit is reached, simply keep track of year-to-date deferral-eligible comp. If the deferral rate remains at or above 4%, add a match amount that brings the annual YTD match to 4% of the YTD comp. Keep in mind that persons who become eligible during the year have comp that is not eligible for deferral (from before they became eligible). In addition, depending on your plan's definition of eligible comp, there may be other comp to exclude from the YTD total for determining the YTD match. Another thing to watch for (when you do per payroll matches) is mid-year deferral election changes, because they affect the net annual deferral rate, and therefore the annual match. Both increases and decreases in deferral rate affect the net annual percentages, so it's best to keep track of it on a YTD basis if you're doing per payroll matches, or just wait until the end of the year to do the true-up, based on the final annual deferral rate.

Don't know. Sorry. Someone else may know. Maybe you now get the added thrill of filing a 720 once a year.

From the following links, it looks like they pay the fee: http://www.lockton.com/Resource_/PageResource/MKT/IRS_Finalizes_Rules_for_Health%20Reform%2012142012.pdf (middle of page 2) http://www.wpsic.com/files/PCORI.pdf (end of page 3)

This suggests, if I read it correctly, http://www.aetna.com/health-reform-connection/tools/grandfathered-plan-implications-checklist.html that you are correct. and on page 2 of this: http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/pdf/grandfatherregtable.pdf

From a previous thread (can't find it right now), you are under age 59-1/2 through the day before you turn 59-1/2. edit to add: 72(t)(2)(A)(i): http://www.section72.com/html/72_t_.html

Some random thoughts. Are the fees for investment advise paid by plan assets? Do the participants age 40 through 54 have an age discrimination claim? Don't younger folks need investment advice as much as mature people do? Are any HCE's under age 55?

With an ESOP, your best resource may simply be the Plan Document. It will certainly detail the Plan's own rules for the allocation of released shares. It may also have the statement that prepayment of a loan is not allowed. Worth looking into.

And if you haven't been, start putting all of your requests for information, forms, etc. in writing and keep a copy of each letter.

Really? (I didn't realize the "any" and "normally" parts, but I'm not very worldly.)

As long as they don't give you the runaround or sue. (apologies. Saw the title, and it's near the end of a long day.)

Good advice above. Just to add that the "Special Tax Notice" may be entitled "Your Rollover Options"

Amen to that. Does that mean that Dave is fully vested in BenefitsLink? (He seems to be.)

It doesn't help that definitions are different for welfare plans, e.g., for a 125 plan, all officers are HCE's.

as in, two a's and two c's and best pronounced by a pirate? just guessing.

Q12 of this: http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq-dependentcoverage.html says employers are not required to offer coverage for children of children.

At last. Now you could make the commute from a residence in Poland from the other thread.

... but an important one. We get this same kind of service and appreciate it. [Meanwhile, any progress on getting the cape flapping again?]

FGC, your point is well taken. If the recordkeeping were paid a la carte, without a fixed fee, then paying for the costs of closing an account would be appropriate, but that's not how it's done. All I'm saying is that the costs of processing a distribution get paid somehow, either with a distribution fee or with a bump up of some other fee. Otherwise, the recordkeeper goes broke (or is charging too much to begin with, which appears not to be the typical case with TPA's). Whether the amount of a distribution fee is reasonable is another, important issue, as you pointed out in another posting.

Presumably, the distribution fee covers the TPA and bank costs for processing a distribution. The size of the distribution has little bearing on the amount of record keeping and paperwork (the costs) involved in the distribution, especially for a distribution to close an account, regardless of who gets the distribution. If the fee is reasonable for the work involved, it's reasonable for any distribution amount. I would think the record keeping for processing forfeitures would increase the TPA's work (costs). A plan could try to negotiate that the fee for closing an account with a small balance will be a stated fraction of the balance, or that the TPA or bank would waive their fee in certain cases. Or the plan sponsor can pay the distribution fee, rather than taking it out of participant's accounts. But I don't expect our TPA or bank to eat all of their costs for processing a distribution. (I am not a TPA or a bank.)

As a suggestion, send the information to the Alternate Payee's lawyer. The AP obviously does not believe the evil twins (the participant and plan administrator), but the AP may be more receptive to the lawyer's explanation of what happens if the excess is not returned.

So, the sponsor can't pay the fees? It has to come out of forfs? Didn't say that. If there are unpaid expenses, it's because the sponsor didn't pay them. In that case you can't allocate forfeitures until you've first used them to pay unpaid fees. If the sponsor paid the fees, there wouldn't be any unpaid, and then you could allocate forfeitures without using forfs for fees.

IMHO, your OP is about the use of forfeitures, and it requires that if there are unpaid plan expenses, forfeitures must be used to pay those plan expenses first, before you can allocate any forfeiture amount to participants' accounts.