Lou S.

There is no RMD required in the IRA. This assumes there was no IRA balance on the prior 12/31 and all RMDs from the 401(k) were completed (that is if it is the 1st distribution year a 4/1 and 12/31 RMD might have been required in the 401(k)).

It is unlikely the discretionary match calls for discretionary amounts/rates varying by employee similar to some cross tested plans that have everyone in their own allocation group but as Jim asks, what does the document say?

Yes. he needs to wait 12 months from the close of the other 401k plan to start up a new 410k plan. So no new 401(k) plan until October at the earliest. edit - I see I'm too slow

You can still have a 12-month suspension. It's just that Safe Harbor Match plans MUST have the 6-month period (at most). I think. Yeah and I think you can even have no suspension depending on what hardship rules you use. Our plans currently all use the "safe harbor" rule on hardships (not to be confused with safe-harbor 401k plan or safe-harbor allocation formula...) so sometimes I forget to mention some important details. Thanks for adding that!

Not a problem, we also use the Corbel Doc and it is OK in both prototype and VS.

Yes. That restriction no longer applies and the 12 month hold out was reduced to 6 month. Forget which law changed that but it was some time ago. I believe with the passage of the final 401(k) regs.

We even had an IRS audit of small plan a few years back where the IRS said the owners were over 415 limit because they got PS of 415© limit plus 401(k) equal to catchup. After politely explaining the IRS regs on catch-ups to the IRS auditor they agreed it was OK and no 415 violation. Hopefully the auditors have a better handle on that particular issue these days if it comes up again.

That sounds like the proper method to me from what I recall of made up missed RMDs but I haven't reviewed the EPCRS procedures on RMDs in a while.

I agree with you. I don't see it as eligible under 415.

No. You can't have any eligible participants other than owners and spouses to qualify as 1 participant EZ (or 1-part abbreviated SF).

I am not aware of any IRS guidance on this subject either. I would err on the side of caution and say the defaulted loan reduced his amount available for hardship as he never really had a distributable event when the loan defaulted. So I would say he only has $3,000 available now for hardship. But as I said, I'm not aware of any formal guidance. If someone does have a citation, that would be great.

Trifecta! I believe the VCP remedy is to make all the missed contributions with interest to make participants whole and submit a VCP application with the correction.

I think you still have to amend, but I don't think it needs to trigger a QNECs for other NHCEs. Though it is possible I missed an EPCRS change on this. The IRS Fix-it guide (updated July, 2014) indicates you can still amend under SCP but need to submit the amendment in the next DL cycle and identify it separately. I'm not sure how you do that on pre-approved plans where they no longer accept DL apps.

For truly large employers it really shouldn't be an issue. I mean they electronically transmit most employees pay via direct deposit and presumably get the payroll taxes transmitted on time too. There really should not be any impediment that I'm aware of to electronically transmit the 401(k) contributions on or about the pay date. For small employers it can be a time/cost issue. The cost of setting up an electronic transmission of the employer's 401(k) contributions in the vendors format might be prohibitive for some small employers and their may be someone in HR who along with their other duties has to manually enter the 401(k) deposits and wire (or send a check) to the 401(k) custodian and may need that 7 days leeway. It's the mid-size companies that are a bit more of a gray area. Though I think everyone might have a different idea of what a mid-size company is. At least that's kind of the feeling I get. Though I am by no means an expert in payrolls so my understanding could be a but faulty.

Corbel doc default is to have rehires eligible on date of rehire if they previously met the eligibility conditions.

If it were me, I'd just report them on 2014.

I agree with Tom. Which is easy to do because he's usually right.

I'm pretty sure that it required pro-ration of the Roth/traditional accounts but the latest IRS Notice 2014-54 may have the clarity you are looking for.

With everyone in their own allocation group and presumably a pick and choose formula I don't really see how you get around the gateway.

Probably. They are most likely going to want something from the TPA and/or client authorizing them to do it. I know we've done it with a few packaged vendors and they all have slightly different procedures. Some are easier to work with than others.

See instructions to form 1099-R it is explained in detail. You can also search this site, I think there are few threads that covered this, possibly even one started by me. Essentially you need to notify them to pull the money out of the IRA and send them amended 1099-Rs since a portion was not eligible for refund.

I think IRS Publication 590 will answer all of your questions. http://www.irs.gov/publications/p590/ As to the conversion it depends on if you have other existing IRA accounts or not as to the tax treatment of conversion and what portion is considered conversion of basis and what portion is considered conversion of income.

Not to be callous but this is really not your problem. Couple of ideas - Borrow the funds against the real estate assets? Pay back with next year's tax refund. Rollover what she can, pay taxes on what she can't. Have them request a private letter ruling from IRS.

Figure the government would make it overly complicated. Looks like your are right. It's been a while since I looked up 457 rules we simply don't do them often enough. http://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/Plan-Participant,-Employee/Retirement-Topics-457b-Contribution-Limits

Unless there has been some law change that I am unaware of they decoupled the 403(b)/401(k) limit from the 457 limit years ago. So yes you can max 403(b)/401(k), including catchup and 457 plus catchup as well. You still can't max both 403(b) and 401(k) those limits are still aggregated by individual SSN.