Lou S.

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.

Owner/participant age 70 wants to start DB plan. Does not have prior plan. Can RMD be delayed to age 73 with 3-year cliff vesting and excluding service prior to start of the Plan? If yes, do you have to "catch-up" the "skipped" RMDs when the benefit becomes accrued in the 3rd "pop-up" year?

Setting aside whether or not this is legal (which I do not know the answer) - Do I have this correct that you are going to give $x to each employee as taxable income and send it is as withholding in 2013 and then make them pay it back to the company in 2014 with after tax dollars from their pay check? This seems nutty to me if I have that correct. It seems like there would be better way to accomplish what you are trying to do. Either company eats this as a bonus, employees are on their own or company gives to participant a loan (if that is allowed). They way it is currently proposed it sounds like they would have taxable income on the same funds in both 2013 and 2014.

Penalty is $25 a day right? So $475 if filed today. Can you request a waiver for reasonable cause? Those used to be successful most of the time but with DFVC available these days I don't know how successful they are now. Is it a corporation with a 4/30 fiscal year? You can rely on the corporate extension to January 15, assuming the corp is on extension. You'll need to get a copy of that though.

Dear Administrator, I have been patient with your system issues but they are not my concern. A valid QDRO has been submitted which you have acknowledged. If I do not receive the payments dating back to your receipt of QDRO with interest in the next 20 days, I will refer this matter to the local branch of the Department of Labor for further inquiry. Warmest regards, Alternate Payee

You don't get the window. 1st year plan over 100 is required to get an audit. The 120 is only is you were previously a small plan.