Lou S.

You can't cut someone's vesting. The 100% vested folks will remain 100% vested in past and future profit sharing. Anyone with 3 years service has the right to elect either vesting schedule. This may apply if the the 5 year schedule is not more favorable in all years than the 6 years schedule, though probably not. That is this is likely to have little application in this case. The net effect is that the vesting change will apply to new participants after the later of adoption of the new schedule or effective date of new schedule for PS. For Match the 5 year schedule will probably apply to all participants with 1 hour of service after the effective date assuming the 5 year schedule is equal to better than the 6 year schedule in all year if drafted not to grant vesting increase to terminated participants.

Why on earth would they need that info in a qualified plan?

For a final filing for the year where assets are distributed when the Plan was terminated in the Prior plan year -- how is question 11a - Is this a DB plan subject to minimum funding? I believe the answer is NO since the plan was terminated in the prior plan year and no SB is prepared. how is question 11b answered? BLANK or $0? I think the answers are NO and BLANK but would like to confirm before I file and DOL kicks it out.

I'm not aware of that having happened. The most recent court case (or discussion of) that I found actuaries to NOT be fiduciaries. This was from last year. http://actuarylaw.com/post/61401708983/actuaries-are-not-fiduciaries-and-thats-a-good-thing That's not to say a different court might take a different view in the future.

I was going to say try this thread there is a long discussion on it http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/53940-safe-harbor-401k-different-eligibility-allowed/#.VDWz1RYcVKo

You can have split eligibility. If the Plan is TH though you don't get the free TH pass so sometimes split eligibility isn't the best idea.

You can use the 3% in the ADP but I'm assuming it also goes to the owner as well (unless HCEs excluded from SH by document) so don't forget to add that in when you calculate the owner's ADP. Also if you term early you have a prorated 401(a)(17) limit but yeah 6 days of pay is probably not much unless folks got a big payout of accrued vacation or something like that.

I think what you are describing would be a prohibited transaction. I believe you can credit it back to plan participants as additional gains but I don't believe you can't take revenue sharing above your fees and rebate it back to the Plan Sponsor.

No. You need 100% in qualifying assets to file SF. see page 2 of instructions http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/pdf/2013-5500-sfinst.pdf You'll need to file 5500 (probably with schedule I) and you may have increased bonding and disclosure to avoid an audit.

Stock sale or asset sale? If asset sale why not run the plan for the full 12 months, term 12/31/2014 and pay everyone out in 2015? Yes, you have the 3% required contribution unless you were a "maybe notice plan" and send a supplemental notice. If stock sale isn't the buyer now responsible for the plan?

File as 1st year. If you get a letter from the IRS simply state the facts you laid out here and it should be a non-issue.

google is your freind http://www.aicpa.org/Publications/TaxAdviser/2014/January/Pages/naegele_jan2014.aspx

They were granted service, use original DOH.

IRAs got some expanded federal protections a few years ago. PPA maybe(??) but they still fall mostly under state law which can vary significantly as I understand it. If I remember right the IRS changed the rules EGTRRA maybe(??) allowing IRS tax liens to grab qualified plan assets and not violate the anti-alienation provisions of 401(a)(13). But I am not a lawyer nor should this be construed as legal advice.

I don't know about VALIC specifically but we typically refer the auditor directly to the insurance company when they ask this question on any type of GIC. The insurance company typically has a prepared stock document that they can give the auditor which answers these questions and seems to make the auditors happy.

I'm curious on 2 points - 1 how do you have a defaulted loan that complies with 72(p)? 2 how do you have a defaulted loan but not a deemed distribution? Am I missing something obvious?

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/56203-plan-limits/#.VDL7dxYcVxI I think this is the thread you are looking for.

LOL dam lawyers

From the look of it I would say no PT. They look like separate independent arms length transactions to me from the facts you describe. But IANAL nor are PTs my area of specialty.

Unless July 15, 2011 signature date was "late" for some statutory reason I don't see the retro active effective date back to July 1 being problematic (unless there are mid-year safe harbor issues or 411(d) cutback issues). We've submitted plenty of restatements over the years that were retroactive to BOY and I don't recall the IRS ever questioning on DL submission or Plan audit.

Some IRA's allow check writing and ACH payments from the account so yes it is possible. You would need to check with your IRA custodian to see if they can accommodated it. Some IRA's require you to be 59 1/2 to have check writing ability.

Schedule C is if for fees paid from the plan, not by the plan sponsor.

The record keepers who are saying that are taking a conservative position that the fee disclosure on the new fund needs to be distributed to participants 30 days prior to making a core fund. I'm not sure if I agree with them but that's the position they are taking. edit - for correct number of days

I'm in a similar situation. Since the SB has to be prepared and they will be over $250K next year we are going to go ahead and file but I don't think it is required.

There should be no problem with this. Just make sure you don't run a foul of the the IRS - 1 rollover per year rule.