Lou S.

I'm not sure I follow your last post but are you proposing that the Plan Administrator pay all the taxes the participant incurred on the distribution plus grossing that up for t he additional taxes owed? That would seem to put the participant in a BETTER position than had the plan not been disqualified in the first place as you would essential convert his pre-tax retirement balance into an after tax balance with a basis that is no longer subject to taxation on that portion. Or maybe I misunderstand your question and you are saying maybe the total taxes were to throw out a number $50,000, if the additional "taxes" because it all became taxable now at highest marginal tax rate was hypothetically determined to be $10,000 that the $10,000 "damages" should be grossed up for the additional taxes that will be due on that?

I believe there are a number of acceptable methods for making up missed loan payments for an approved leave of up to 12 months when the employee returns, all include accruing interest for the missed period. 1. Make a lumps sum payment to bring the loan current and continue with the payments. 2. Reamortize the outstanding balance of the remaining term of the loan (not to exceed the 5 year limit from the initial loan). 3. Balloon payment at the end of the loan term to pay it off. I believe this is an exception to the level amortization rule of 72(p) in this limited case but you may want to double check that. 4. I think other there are few other reasonable methods as well but I'm not sure. We use option 2 for the plans we provide services to. As for the LTD, I can't help you there. edit - you may find this useful from the IRS phone forum on loans http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/loans_phoneforum_transcript.pdf see page 4 of the transcript for approved leave of absence.

I don't think it is one of the things specifically allowed in the SH plan to amend mid-year. That said, I'm not sure it is an amendment that the IRS would have a problem with provided advance notice was given and it didn't change info in the SH notice. Amending now effective 3-1-15 I would think would be no problem at all so long as the SH notice addressed it.

There are plenty of safe harbor formulas that get you ADP relief but NOT ACP relief. Voluntary after tax contributions as I understand it are always subject to ACP testing but maybe I'm missing something.

7 & 2 are pushing the bounds to pass testing in my humble opinion. But maybe there is some reasonable rationale for hiring such young kids and putting them on the payroll. I agree with John's recommendation that this is a decision for the client/CPA/employment attorney and not for you as the TPA to decide.

The fund actually earned 10% for the period in question he should be credited with 10%. The 10% quarterly rate earned would be ~40% annual rate. So what you really have is $1000 x 10% x 92/92 ~ $1000 x 40% x 92/365 Depending on whether you use simple or compound interest or how you annualize the 10% return any amount you determine will be very close on amounts, with a few pennies.

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.