Lou S.

A 5500 should not be filed with an SSN, you need an employer identification number (EIN). If the Plan Sponsor did not have one, one should have been applied for with Form SS-4 for the purpose of filing the Form 5500 series.

As long as he didn't have more than 50% interest in A you are fine for 415

Then yes you can do what you describe. But by using the $2,980 on the 9/30/2014 test, that will not be available for the 9/30/15 test as you've used part of the 2014. edit - my numbers were off

Maybe. Was any of the 5,500 catchup for 2013 used on the 9/30/2013 test?

It is a good question. One I don't have an authoritative answer too. However I assume the "damages" would be based on the acceleration of taxes on the entire balance in the year of disqualification and loss of tax deferred growth on amount disqualified. I image you could do an after tax present value of the lump sum less taxes against an after tax present value of the stream of payments in retirement if you make some assumptions about growth of the assets before disqualification and assumptions about future tax rates and take the difference as the "damages".

Maybe they are contemplating sending to a random sampling of 401(k) plans like the 401(k) survey project they had? I agree it seemed odd that it had an ack file, you'd think they'd just make it an additional schedule that 401(k) plans file with the 5500.

In that case I think you need to preserve the ERA for account balances (plus/minus G/L to ERA) as of the amendment date.

First I've seen of it. I already dislike it.

It feels wrong. I don't have a citation for you. Have you asked Corbel? We use the same master text and I honestly didn't find anything directly on point on this issue.

Yes. I would have a problem auto escalating someone who affirmatively elects 0%.

I believe the last time I researched this you could do it with a big caveat. The Big Caveat being that you had to preserve the ERA for any benefits accrued in the plan at the time of the amendment and allow participants already in the plan to age into ERA with respect to those benefits already accrued. But it's been at least 5 years since I last looked at the issue.

If it is a stock sale and it is terminated after the stock sale, the assets will need to transfer to the successor B. If it is terminated before the sale, then participants can take distributions. If it is an asset sale it depends on whether or not Company A retains control of the 401(k) plan or if they "sell it" to company B as part of the sale. If Company A retains it they can then terminate it. I am not a lawyer but this my general understanding of the rules.

See 1.401(a)(9)-6 Q&A 1 (d). As rcline says unless the participant is taking a limp sum it should be a annuity. If you are using this provision though the amount to divide by the applicable division is the actual lump sum distribution.

For full details see §1.401(a)(9)-3 Q&A 1 through 6.

I would agree with you.

Is it a Non-ERISA deferral only 403(b) plan? Is the SEP a proto-type SEP? I'm not an expert on non-profits but I think clarifying those 2 questions might help some one who is give you better advice.

First situation for CG. So no CG. You add the % owned by each together and treat them as a single person. Second situation for determining HCE-Key status.

Do you mean 1 person 5500-SF? I would say if you have the transmission log showing 10/15 filing you should be fine even if IRS/DOL sends a late notice; a simple letter will a copy of the 10/15 transmission should end any further inquiries.

I believe he would be an HCE by look back on ownership for the PYE in question but I am unaware of any look back rule with respect to 401(a)(9). If you are not a 5% owner when you turn 70 1/2, you are not a 5% owner - conversely if you are a 5% owner when you turn 70 1/2, you remain a 5% owner for 401(a)(9) even if you later are no longer a 5% owner at some later date. Hope that make sense.

It is allowed provided it passes the various IRS non-discrimination tests. The groups would need to be written into your document. Some documents don't allow a great deal of flexibility.

You mean other than having to maintain multiple plan documents each of which has to be timely amended for IRS tax law changes and having to file a separate Form 5500 for each plan? If you want to open up accounts at multiple places you'd probably be better off hiring a TPA to give you one plan document and allow you to open up investment accounts where ever you want or to establish a SEP which doesn't have the same kind of reporting and document update requirements (though you might have a considerably lower limit on contributions if your pay is lower than the max and you are trying to make the largest contribution possible.) Typically the documents from Fidelity, Vanguard, et al require you keep all of your funds with that vendor.

I've always taken it to mean the first pay date after the entry date but I think as long as you have consistent administrative procedures you could do it either way.

If the participant has reached the later of age 62 or NRA in the plan you can also cash them out or purchase an annuity for them in annuity plans. Otherwise I agree with your assessment in general for on going plans under current law.

Typically you hire someone to do it. Sometimes do it yourself to save money can have unintended and potentially costly results.

yes see instructions on page 4 http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/pdf/2013-5500-sfinst.pdf these are for SF, but similar instrutions can be found in 5500 and EZ as well.