Lou S.

Non-issue. Sponsor moved. Send notice to participants but amendment is not required to update a Sponsor's address.

I don't see why not, with usual caveat that provided document allows for payment of plan expenses. I suppose it could technically be argued that it is a settlor function to change vendors which caused the recquired change but personally I think that's a stretch.

It depends on how cautious you wnat to be with documentation. Some plans will accept the participant's signed statement, other plans want a good faith closing estimate, and I've heard of other plans that will only pay a home loan proceeds to the escrow company.

You are doing 2014 testing, I see no reason why you wouldn't use the method in effect for the year year to determine 2014 HCEs. If your plan is amended before the end of 2014 to use the TPG for 2014 I would determine 2014 HCEs based on 2013 compensation AND in the top-paid group in 2013 (plus any 5% owners you may have who are not in in the TPG).

Same table. Is the beneficiary a spouse who is more than 10 years younger than the participant? If so, maybe they are thinking you should be using that joint life table to get a smaller RMD but that's all I can think of.

Don't know on your first question but on the second. Google is your friend http://www.unclefed.com/IRS-Forms/1997/f5500ez.pdf

If employer B had a participating agreement why didn't they just take over sponsorship of the pkan on 1/1/14 instead of terminating the plan? Since they are a controlled group they are considered 1 employer for pension plan purposes and yes I think you have some sucessor plan issues and improper distribution issues.

Thank you.

Can an existing plan of the Plan Sponsor be a qualified replacement plan? Small DB plan with some excess assets above 415 limit, can they transfer it to an existing profit sharing or 401(k) that already covers all of the DB participants and allocate the excess or do they need to actually establish a new PS plan to accomplish this? Excess assets can easily be allocated in 1 year.

I've seen it done both ways by different vendors in the past. Now with the disclosure rules some vendors/tpas may get around the disclosure by saying it is a fee after the distribution and thus technically not a fee charged to the participant. Though that's just a guess on my part.

We always reflect in the year they are actually paid. Though I have seen some 5500s where they treat it as a payable and show it in the year that caused the refund. I think either is acceptable as long as you are consistant.

The Plan document usual specifies an order of beneficiaries if participants do not submit one. I do not believe an Employer or Plan Administrator has an legal duty to make sure participants submit beneficiary designation forms.

Oops you said they are all NHCEs I missed that. Yes you can descriminate against other NHCEs. Odd that all 5 are NHCEs none of them are 5% owners?

No. Unless NHCEs aregettng some benefit in a plan you haven't mentioned it will not pass descrimination.

Make a contrbution to immediately bring the plan to 110%?

Should have been part of the purchase agreement. Since it does not apprear to be addressed, they bought the stock and are now the de facto sponsor of the plan like it or not. The aquiring company is now responsible for the wrap up details on the terminated plan presumably now in the prosess of paying out participants and possibly waiting on an IRS DL. I am not a lawyer though and your milage may vary.

If the joint venture also has a plan make sure you don't run afoul of §415 which has a lower theshold, 50% (instead of 80%) if I recall correctly but I don't remember if it is = 50% or >50%.

No controlled group issue if that's what you are asking. And since your ruled out ASG doesn't sound like any problem to me.

We use Corbel and they have the gateway fail safe. I don't really know about other documents.

You cannot borrow from an IRA (it does not matter if itis ROTH or traditional) You would need to talk with your former employer about 401(k) loans as many plans do not allow loans to terminated participants.

Leaving aside any potential ASG issues - Company 2 is clearly not a CG with 1 or 3 Assuming no other familar relationship beside B/D above - Since A has no interest in Company 3 - 1 & 3 do not meet the 80% brother-sister test since common & idential ownership are both 2/3rds.

I think 1.401(a)(9)-(2), Q & A #2 is the relevant regulation Based on this he turns 70 1/2 in 2013 and his highest ownership at any time in 2013 is more than 5% therefore he's a 5% owner. I believe he would have had to become a less than 5% owner on of before 12/31/2012 to avoid the required 2013 RMD (assuming he is still working for the company). Also because he is considered a 5% owner for 2013, he will be considered a 5% owner for RMDs in subsequent years. If someone else has a different view I'd be curious as to what I've got wrong here.

She's right. Filing the return on time negates the extension. I'm sure I've read some tax cases on this but can't put my finger on any at the moment.

And an eligible participant for a safe harbor contribution can not waive his/her contribution for the year without blowing up the safe-harbor feature.

For #1, you wouldn't happen to have a cite related to that? I am still worried about the implications of 89-97. I understand IRC and Regs related to partial termination only talk about vesting, but I think 89-97 logically extends to partial terminations. If there is any authority out there stating otherwise, I really want to see it. For #2, thats a good thought. I will have to look into that more. Thanks for your comments Lou. No cite for #1. But as others have comments and I agree with then a partial termination is not the same as full termination. Partial termination relates to vesting issues only at least as far as my understanding goes.