Lou S.

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.

If you can qualify for the 410(b)(6)© transition relief, then I think was you are proposing is probably the best and simplest solution.

How, when, and why did the participating employer cease participating in the plan?

Why? I'm assuming it is a 1 man owner plan so no DOL issues.

Why wouldn't trustee directed plans be allowed to invest in collectables? Not saying that is the most prudent thing or that collectables are easy to value but I'm not sure why they would be prohibited.

I think Standardized Prototypes sometimes have language in that might make some things problematic but most Non-Standardized Prototypes should be fine. Probably wouldn't hurt to run it by your document provider as this is a question they can probably answer fairly easily.

Do I understand he did not exceed the 402(g) limit, just had deferrals on ineligible pay? I don't think this is technically an excess deferral that needs to be refunded by 4/15 but rather a different form of correction. Is this an EPCRS correction of some sort?

Did you receive a letter from the IRS that the 5558 was filed? If yes, what date did the IRS say it was extended to? If the letter says 10/15/14, just keep that and show it to the IRS if they ask.

I did not realize these were CBA plans. Those are not my specialty. But if you are already giving a notice about the merger would it hurt to put in 204(h) language in the notice with respect to MP -> PS? I don't really see a down side to including it whether or not it is required, but if it turns out to be required and you don't include it could be a very expensive mistake.

Thank you. That's very helpful.

Yes a 204(h) notice is required.

DB - NOT covered by PBGC Assume the following applies to both plans - all participants covered by both plans - covered payroll = $1,000,000 - MRC in DB = $250,000 - Max deductible in DB = $400,000 - 6% of pay in DC = $60,000 - 25% of covered payroll $250,000 Can sponsor make max deductible of $400,000 + $60,000 to DC plan and deduct them both? or Is sponsor limited to $250,000 MRC in DB + $60,000 to DC plan? That is if the MRC in DB is 25% or more of covered pay is the sponsor limited to MRC in DB + 6% DC or can the sponsor always take max DB + 6% DC I feel this should be straight forward but for some reason I'm brain cramping.

I would think the participant would only have recourse if the service provider misuses the data.

And since it's national talk like a pirate day... Arghh, once upon a time the 401(k) limit was the 415© limit and with another wave yea royal congress critters dropped it to $7,000. And funny how in 1993 that cut in the comp limit didn't apply to government plans. Almost like it was magic.

Sounds right to me.

That would be unprecedented. Do we have a sarcasm font on this site. And thanks for the projection.

Yes, she can. Provided the plan accepts rollovers from IRAs.

First this won't help with top-heavy as catch-ups go in to the balance for determining TH. Second it's probably prohibited if you are doing it after the fact. Third I assume you are doing this for ADP reasons as there are probably some HCEs who are not cacthup eligible who are likely to get large refunds?

The plan is deemed not top-heavy under the regulation if the only contributions are employer contributions satisfying the safe-harbor rules and employee elective deferrals. So you are fine with this design. That is the HCE, non-Keys do not need to receive an employer allocation. I'm assuming this is the employers only plan, that is they aren't using this plan to support er contributions or accruals in another plan.

Excellent point. I, like the OP, was focusing on the wife and forgot all about the husband's clear attribution in A!

Don't forget you also need to satisfy all of B, C, D (B) The individual is not a director or employee and does not participate in the management of such corporation at any time during such taxable year; © Not more than 50 percent of such corporation’s gross income for such taxable year was derived from royalties, rents, dividends, interest, and annuities; and (D) Such stock in such corporation is not, at any time during such taxable year, subject to conditions which substantially restrict or limit the spouse’s right to dispose of such stock and which run in favor of the individual or his children who have not attained the age of 21 years. And if they live in a community property state she may be deemed to own husbands shares anyway. But I am not a lawyer.

By attribution I'm pretty sure you have a CG since wife is deemed to own shares of husband and vis-a-versa. However you may meet the exceptions in 1563(e)(5) so you may want to give those a look.

I believe it is just the deferrals not refunded by the deadline that are subject to the excise tax.