Lou S.

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.

Doubt this is exactly what you are looking for but this http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/publications/401k_employee.html might help. What you are describing would seem to fall squarely under investment advisory fees that could typically be paid from the plan. Mr. Chrun might need to be a Registered Investment Advisor for it to work but beyond the royal PITA of logistics and notices, (and the usual question of is the fee reasonable) I don't see where this would be a problem.

Match can be used to offset top-heavy if provided in the plan document but can not be used to satisfy gateway.

Participant entered 7/1 with 0% deferral rate. Participant elected 10/15 so if feesible the election should be enfore 11/1 (first of the month following the change). I agree with everything ERISA said above, show them the summary plan description section that describeschanging future elections and ask them how you don't qualify? Then ask the TPA/record-keeper if they will be making the employer whole for the missed deferral opprtunity QNEC the employer may be required to make on your behalf or if they will be making the employer pay that? Copy the head of your HR department on the question to the TPA.

Typically you will want the QDRO worded something to the effect of -- 50% of martial protery as of (date of seperateration) adjusted for gain/(loss) until time of segregation to alternate payee account or payout to alternate payee.

Seems like a victim of the document and the way the match is being done but sounds like the system is simply following the terms of the plan document.

Yes. I've seen it in seminars and such but never though I've never presonally used it in practice.

Sounds like it should be easy to do. Unfortuately I'm not seeing anything in the regs that easily allows 0% < HCE match rate < SHMAC rate. If someone does no of a provsion that would fit into it, I'd be interesed to see it too as that would make a select few employers somewhat happy.

I see election forms that are 0% but the particpant elects investments for any employer contribution such as profit sharing or non elective safe harbor.

If the plan documnet allows a seperate election for bonus or allows you to change percentage on any payroll there would not be any problem doing what you propose. If the plan document limits the frequency of chnages to something like first of each quarter, you would have a problem with the terms of the plan document.

I'm not sure if you can have a greater of formula for SH match but if you can you do a greater of 100% of deferral up to $2,000 or standard SH formula. Clearly the first formula would only apply to employees making less than $66.7K. In case you have owner HCEs making less than that amount you might want to exclude HCEs from first part of that. Now if that doesn't satisfy SH you can still do it but I think that opens your match to ACP testing. It is clearly an interesting situation that porbably wasn't contemplated by the IRS when setting up SH plan rules as this is the kind of design that is going to favor low paid employees.

not sure if this helps or not but wiki tells me that 15 states recognize same sex marriage and another 5 have laws granting "similar" status http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States

I'm not sure what you mean by "enabling language." My underatanding is that if your maybe notice and supplemental notice are both good and your amendment to elect SH for the year is timeley, you are good to go.

No, it does not sound right. Pension contributions as I understand it are an exception to the cash basis rule and are "deemed" made on the last day of the plan year if made timely for tax deduction purposes. I think the rules are laid out somewhere in 404.

I don't see why not assuming the desposits to her account were correct except for the fact that SSN was wrong. I would treat it like a data correction. If there were distributions reported under the "fake SSN" correct 1099-Rs may be required, otherwise I don't see much of an issue going forward just changing the SSN to the now correct number.

Do you mean simple 401(k) as in easy or simple as in SIMPLE? I don't know much about SIMPLE 401(k) Plans but unless there is a prohibition on short PY in a SIMPLE you should be good to go. If you meant easy and not SIMPLE, then you are good to go with short PYE.

Sure, no problem.

The Plan needs to satisfy RMD. If he rolls it to new company plan and is still working he can delay future RMDs while still working (assuming non-5% owner), if he rolls it to an IRA he will have future RMDs. I don't see any way around the RMD for this year in Plan that is terminating.

I could be wrong, but I don't think so. Though if you cross test with seperate rate groups you could probably do a 3% PS and offset by the 3% safe-harbor and accomplish basically the same thing. A few more hoops and might not be perfect but likely going to give the result you want almost all the time in small plans.

How do you not pay the presumably valid QDRO from the Plan and how would you get the decesed AP to agree to a change in terms to pay from outside the Plan? Also curious as to why he would want to sub out pre-tax assets for post-tax assets doesn't seem to make much sense to me but maybe there are reasons.