Lou S.

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.

Be prepared for a ton of menial processing.

ASPPA has recorded webcasts ($110 a pop for members with a discount if you have more than one person from same company ordering) that are generally 2 credits a piece and usually good for EA, ASPPA, ERPA, NIPA credit.

Been there done that it rarely works. Likely you will just generate larger ACP refunds. Why not just make the 3% NE or 4% match a safe harbor and be done with it?

How about a pooled account in the plan for participants with no SSN and allocate it to the SSN when they get one?

agree

I think you are going to fail the effective availability portion of the discrimination testing rules since it would effectively be available to a much higher percentage of HCEs than NHCEs

Yes there is an RMD. Calculated based on FMV of prior 12/31 I don't see a lot of insurance in plans but isn't insurance past NRA problematic from the incidental benefit rules? You have almost the same "problem" as if the participant's only asset is an illiquid asset. The likely options are distribute the whole policy to participant for full FMV, surrender the policy for CSV or have participant purchase policy from the plan and make RMD out of proceeds.

How is compensation defined for allocation purposes in the Plan document? Are these 2 separate plans each only adopted by one of the CG members or one plan with two divisions?

If you are your only employee a solo-401(k) will probably give you the most bang for your buck if your are looking for a deduction. For your other questions consider meeting with a qualified financial planner who can go over your specify questions.

This would be the correct way to go. Change the SH plan for 2014 and merge DC plan #2 in to SH plan in 2014. Draw back is addition expense for document, 2 5500s, merge documentation, etc.

Yes. You have 2 folks who need to benefit under that scenario to pass 401(a)(26) and you only have 1 benefiting. Plan should have been amended to allow for staff person to have an accrual in 2012.

New LLC, controlled group, sounds like it would fall into the exception for "business transactions". I haven't looked at them in a while but off the top of my head I don't think I'd have a problem having the LLC adopt the plan.

Getting spousal consent on the withdrawal should be sufficient. I don't see why he can't get the maximum or why you would have to pro-rate.

Ask them what part of 72(p)(2)© is unclear

I thought there was some clarification of the model amendments in 2012 and if you adopted them in 2012 based on IRS published guidence you are fine and don't need to re-adopt them. If you adopted them in 2009, you may want to reveiw the amendment against the final IRS model amedment to see if your amendment is up to snuff so to speak.