Lou S.

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.

I have not read an actual policy but my understanding of how they work is that the inflation protection is for the 10% of plan assets limit, not for the non-qualifying assets to avoid the small plan audit.

I'm not sure why you would set up 3 plans with 3 different custodians with 3 different plan numbers but yes in that case you probably do have 3 plans. Why not just merge them into 1 plan?

I think you've covered it pretty well. Remember you can almost always discriminate against HCEs.

The loan is paid off, return the payments directly to the participant.

I think the conservative approach is to put him in a job classification that is excluded rather than by specificly name and to make it effective the first day of the next plan year (prospective if you will).

I'm pretty sure they are contributions subject to the contribution deduction limits.

I think he may be comparing apples and oranges but then again it may just be over my pay grade.

I think if you start a brand new plan and make all the PS contribs to that you can have the vesting schedule apply to all then merge it in after 5 years. Though you'll have to grant service in the new plan at least back to the effective date of the current plan. Ask him how his method satisfies 411(a)(10) sections (A) & (B)