Lou S.

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

Sounds like a scam to me. Isn't that notice usually associate with failure to pay income tax and adjustments to tax returns? Since the Form 5500 is an INFORMATIONAL return there is no tax associated with it. Now if it was a late filing notice that would be different. I'd try and contact the IRS directly, and probably not on the number listed on the notice.

See attached chart from IRs Pub 590 http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/rmd_chart.pdf

Is it a collectively bargained plan? Is it covered by the PBGC?

If SH is comp from date of entry and it is only allocation, your plan is deemed to not be TH. Or a roundabout way of say you are right comp from 7/1 is OK.

I am not aware of any rule that would allow the sponsor with betting away with not providing a hard copy if requested by the participant.

My understanding is the same as yours. They are treated as not having been made; so not in ADP test; not eligible for match.

Ignore the unrelated rollover source for top-heavy. Ignore it for end balance and ignore any distributions from that source.

Why can't he? We do stuff like that all the time.

I'm pretty sure you can still use 2012 Form. It is 2011 and earlier that they no longer accept.

Any hours an employee works or is paid for need to be included in vesting and eligibility calculations regardless of whether or not the compensation is eligible for the plan benefits.

Good question. I'm not sure but if this is treated like an option to acquire than they are treated as owning it under 318(a)(4). Also on your comp, $139 would make him an HCE (unless he's not in the TPG) but not necessarily KEY.

Couldn't he update under the non-amender provisions of EPCRS? If the assets aren't large and he plans on taking a taxable distribution would it be easier to just disqualify the plan and take taxable income? Presumably there are no deductions to open tax years to worry about since the corp dissolved about 10 years ago. The advantage to EPCRS at this point is really the ability to roll the assets over to an IRA. Right?

I'm sure there is some logic behind this but I wish I could say throwing away 3 grand that someone wanted to give me would negatively impact my retirement. I'm sure she hasn't thought this all the way through. And I agree with ERISAAtoolkit above.

Seems OK to me.

Yes but presumably the IRA balance on 12/31/12 was $0 so the 2013 RMD for the IRA is $0.

Our experience has generally been that the vast majority of participants make little or no change to their 401(k) election when PS is converted to match.

I could be wrong as I have not worked on a Dep care plan in a long time and never on an FYE plan but I thought the Dep care rules limit the $5,000 on a CYE basis regardless of PYE similar the 402(g) limit in a 401(k) plan.

Yeah not an issue at all. My mother-in-law was taking regular withdrawals the year she turned 70 1/2 and we didn't realize she hadn't satisfied the RMD until we did her taxes.She just took out more in 1st quarter of following year. Just make sure you don't double count the amount as 2013 and 2014 RMD because you need to take the full 2014 RMD + the additional amount to satisfy the 2013 RMD that you were short by the prior year.

I think that because the home loan purchase is an exception to the 5 year payback rule specifically listed in 72(p), they are sufficiently different to be treated as separate features. In fact most of the plans we work with don't allow loans more than 5 years even if for home purchase, they just don't want the hassle. Though most of our plans are small plans so that might have something to do with it.

Wouldn't they be different features? NHCEs presumably would have same access to residential loans as HCEs. Though I think from an admin stand point I can't see why they would want to add complexity by having different limits. But BG5150 echo's my sentiments on residential loans longer than 5 years from retirement plans. Participant loans are bad enough without potentially offering 30 year participant loans that I've occasionally seen in some plans.

The IRS maximums are just that, maximums. There is nothing that prohibits a Plan Sponsor from setting loan terms less than the statutory maximums as long as it is done in a nondiscriminatory manner.

Last I checked IRS still does not recognize scriveners error except in very limited circumstances. You can try your method under EPCRS but the IRS may propose running the ADP (and possibly ACP) tests for each year and making corrections under EPCRS if necessary.