Lou S.

I tend to agree with masteff. If you are concerned and there are no other employees to worry about just make your eligibility less restrictive. http://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/SEP-Plan-Eligibility-Requirements

They aren't catch-up contributions under 414(v) [i think that's the right section]. Catch-up contributions have special treatment in that they don't count against any limit.

But by reclassifying you aren't exceeding the 415 limit. Catch-ups are not included as part of the 415 annual additons. You had a problem if the under 50 was allocated the $5,500 over the limit and you corrected by refunding deferral and earnings but I think under the revised EPCRS procedures even that might once again be OK as it once was in pre-EGTRRA restatements.

Not true. It is any limit.

The 457 limit was decoupled from the 402(g) limit (which covers 401k/403b) years ago. I think with EGTRRA but it's possible it was a later law.

This sounds like the most prudent thing to do but I'll take a shot (I am not a lawyer) - 1. Sounds like a reasonable course of action. 2. That would probably be a very nice and very expensive gesture on the part of the partners. I'd want to run that by legal counsel first to make sure it isn't a PT and if they did do that I'd want a partnership resolution signed by all partners before reducing their account balances and giving it to someone else as there might be a prohibited cutback issues involved with that. Though the IRS & DOL are generally OK with screwing HCEs to benefit NHCEs so if they did do that it would probably fly. 3. Get an independent fair market value of the mortgage pool and base RMD on that. I hope you are referring to 2014 RMDs and not 2013 RMDs due 4/1/14. Because the former you have some time to hope the liquidity issue solves itself. 4. If I was the Trustee I'd say that sounds like throwing good money after bad and would absolutely want a legal opinion before doing that. Just my $0.02, which sounds like the value of the mortgage pool right about now.

Sounds like the custodian's problem.

Is it with in 60 days? Can you roll it over since it isn't an RMD?

Thanks. Appreciate the feedback. I think he is leaving enough in the account to cover any potential RMD if he leaves plus he's making 401(k) contribs and has a receivable PS contrib so we should be OK should he leave. Was just wondering if taking any distribution triggered RMD.

I believe you would need a Prohibited Transaction exemption from the DOL for it to not be considered a PT but I am not an expert in PTs.

An employee with no ownership age 70.5+ is still working. Plan allows for in-service distributions. Participant wants to rollover account to IRA. Does the participant have to receive RMD before rolling over account. That is does the rollover request trigger an otherwise delayable RMD? Oh and yes I realize that by rolling over now they will subject funds to RMD in the IRA in future years that might be delayed under plan rules.

SB is not attached to 1 participant DB plans. The question about Bonding is skipped on 1 part plans. There is an abbreviated subset of questions you answer on the 1 part SF v EZ. Supposedly the 1 part SF is not supposed to be on the DOL website but I don't know if that is true for sure or not.

They are only tax exempt if they meet the 5 year rule + age 59.5 otherwise it is similar to after tax IRA with the exception that the basis is recovered first before any earnings.

50% excise tax on the participant but may be waived for cause by IRS. Plan is supposed to correct through VCP if I recall correctly.

By keeping good records.

Pretty sure self-employed with income of $0.00 or less s/b thrown out of testing.

Yes. Plan sponsor is required by ERISA to retain these. In practice if you have an actual DL (as opposed to letter on prototype or VS) they will generally only ask for documents subsequent to DL. We are going through as similar audit on a 2011 PYE and they too asked for everything back to GUST.

You could have a February 15, 20xx - February 14, 20xx+1 PY if you really want a Valentines PYE. Not sure why you want that but you can do it.

My 2 cents - for Brother-Sister controlled group it is 5 or fewer owners with at least 80% common ownership and more than 50% identical ownership. Yes the sister is separate but husband and wife can be thought of as one. Getting back to the OPs question, yes I think you can have one plan but I think you may need to run multiple non-discrimination tests on the groups that are controlled and the groups that are not controlled.

MW & RW = 81% common ownership (co), 81% identical ownership (io) = brother sister (bs) CG MW & MCDC = 100% co, 70% io = bscg RW & MCDC = 60% co, 60% io <> bscg At least that's what I come up with, if I've screwed something up someone can correct me.

Yes

Check to see if the Plan has "fail-safe" gateway language that bring up all participants who receive an employer allocation up to the required minimum gateway regardless of other plan conditions. If it doesn't you probably need an 11(g) amendment to allocate these participants an additional contribution to satisfy the gateway and it probably needs to be a vested contribution to satisfy the IRS's economic benefit rules.

Thanks. That's what I thought. Guess it is time to get more details from the client.

100% owner dies. After death of owner, adult son is hired. Owners trust still owns 100% of business. Is son an owner by attribution?

The employer has 3 options - Plan year ending in fiscal year Plan year beginning in fiscal year Pro-ration based on months. Once election is made (I believe by filing tax return with the deduction) the employer must use same method afterward unless they apply to the IRS for an accounting method change. I'm not a CPA though so you might want to double check with the client's CPA on how they are treating it. Here is an IRS manual that has some examples starting on page 6 http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/epche903.pdf