Lou S.

They would no longer be an active participant in the plan. They would continue to accrue vesting service. It is very similar to when a plan excluded collectively bargined employees and a previously eligible employee goes from being non-union to union. Except in this case for coverage you would probably have them as a non benefiting employee for certain tests where collectively bargined employees can generally be ignored.

Does the IRS rollover chart help or is this a specific exception I'm not taking into account? http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/rollover_chart.pdf Mind you this is just what the IRS allows, Plan's don't have to accept rollovers or can limit the types of Plans they will accept rollovers from.

Yes, you would have to aggregate.

That is correct.

If he is in the 401(k) plan you have a 416 top heavy minimum in the 401(k) due to required aggregation with the SEP.

Be careful of a disguised CODA. That's usually an issue in partnerships where partners kind of pick and chose what their contribution will be but it could possibly be extended in this case, though I doubt that would be an issue. From a nondiscrimination standpoint, there is absolutely no problem with what you propose. The final question would be, what does the document say? Does it allow for differential rate groups by classification that would allow this employee to receive the allocation without giving any to other employee? If you are talking about 2016, then there is more than enough time to amend the plan to make it happen. If you are trying to do it for 2015 with amendment, be careful if their are currently no conditions for receiving a year end contribution from the employer.

You can't reduce the participant's accrued benefit. So no you can't bill the participant for the CB distribution. You can bill the Plan or the Sponsor.

Who would put as the IRA owner's name? I don't think that's an option in this case. I assume they have made every reasonable effort to find beneficiaries? Does the document allow for forfeiture, with restitution if the the beneficiaries come forward at a later date? Is escheating the to the state and option?

If it is lack of documentation, the correction is simply to get the documentation and retain it. I guess you could call that self correction. If it is that the proceeds were not used for primary residence, the correction is available through VCP. Either through re-amortization over no more than 5 years from the original loan or through loan default for violation of 72(p) if outside the 5 year window from the original loan.

The rule is on remitting to the plan, not on allocating to participants.

The QNEC would be for the missed deferral period. Presumably from his re-hire though the date he was allowed to participate. So you would have a QNEC due for his missed period in both 2014 and 2105.

I think you may be mixing the vesting and eligibility rules.

I could be wrong on this but I think what you have is a document failure easily correctable under VCP.

The 402(g) limit is on a calendar year. The 402(g) limit can be exceeded in a non-calendar fiscal year assuming the participant does not exceed the 402(g) limit (including any catch-up if applicable) in either calendar year and does not exceed the 415 limit (or any other plan imposed limit on deferrals) in the limitation year which is often but not always the plan year. That said, this can be problematic for plans subject to ADP testing when HCEs do this. edit - that's a long winded way of saying - very likely no problem in your example.

Yes. If yours doesn't show it, check to make sure you are on the latest service pack. The one I just printed has it broken out.

Request an in-service distribution of the loan balance. Problem solved.

Isn't failure to give the notice an operational failure?

The common method is to force the participant to either pay off the loan or take a taxable distribution. In some situations the asset acquiring company will allow participants to rollover loan balances along with the other funds, but in my experience that this the exception rather than the rule. Your mileage may vary.

I'm not sure. The question used to be on the form but was removed at some point and added back this year. edit And by "used to be" I mean it may predate the SF and date back to the old C/R cycle forms.

If the number on Line 6(h) of Form 5500* is "high**" then that might cause the IRS to question whether a partial term has occurred. If the participants were 100% vested because you deemed a partial term to have occurred then they would not be included in the line 6(h) count, in my opinion. *Line 5(e) on Form SF. **typically more than 20% of participants.

I'm 99% sure this would be OK in the 401(a) side as the collective bargained ee's are almost treated like there own sub plan within a plan. But I don't work with 403(b) so I'm not sure how the interaction extends in that arena.

Most likely would be an ASG but you check with an employment attorney to confirm.

I'm pretty sure you can't have a QSLOB with less than 50 employees. So Company B with 25 employees would have to be included with one of the QSLOB lines. Since you only have 2 companies in the example, you don't have a QSLOB. So what you have is a controlled group falling under one testing scheme. That is you can't disregard the employees of B when testing A's plan and you can't disregard the employees of A when testing B's plan.

You can test otherwise excludable employees separately.

good point I hadn't thought of that, I suppose some mid0year amendments could be problematic in that case. Though the OP does not mention if it is a SH plan or not.