Lou S.

It is a question of cost benefit. Is the cost of terminating the old plan and establishing a new one less than assuming the risk of problems with the old plan.

Yes, no one has yet reached the last day of the year allocation condition. You can amend allocation method up until 12/31 with running into anti-cutback issues.

Does anyone use it? How do you like it? Did you convert from another recordkeeping system? If so, was that hard?

No. While all IRAs of a participant can be aggregated and the minimimum distribution be taken from any one, each qualified plan must indepedently satisfy the RMD requirements.

You have it correct. As for advice I suppose not allowing loans or at least loan defualts is out of the question.

Yeah right now it is a prohibited loan to the employer/owner. If he doesn't pay it back, it is called theft and generally has criminal implications.

I would be uncomfortable giving advice in this situation but I suspect things like this have been going on one day less than government programs tied to income caps have been going on.

I've seen similar patternes with PS money being requested for hardship on an annual basis but defering for 6 months than taking it out as harship seems nutty as ESOP guy implies above, unless there is a generous match that overcomes the negative tax consequeses.

Government intent? Becasue they said so? I'm guessing at govenment intent but because they are allowing sfae-harbor contributions to "buyout" testing they seem to be treating safe harbor contributions as true retirement plan contributions much the same way they treated momey purcahse and target benefit. As for correcting I agree with BG, check EPCRS. Participants were probably allowed to take safe harbor monies becuase they didn't have other amounts but it might be worth cheching to see if participants did have sources that were eligible and just move money around now to put them where they would have been had the funds come out of the correct eligible sources.

Agree 1©(9) is where CCT goes on Sch H Call Met Life (or custodian of assets) on Schedule A question, they should know the answer pretty quick.

Sounds like a partial termination upon the complete discontinuance of employer contributions. Just curious how are they buying back the stock when vested participants leave and take a distribution? Granted I don't really work on ESOPs but generally the ones I've seen the company often needs to make contributions just to have cash in the Plan to pay on going distributions.

Cross test the contribution. Have groups A, B & C.

Even if the CB credit is 5% it is unlikely the DC equivalent for gateway testing is exactly 5%. Or simply put CB credit of X% is generally not X% for gateway testing.

The DB allocation rate has to be converted to a hypothetical contribution rate for each person whihc can be used to satisfy some or all of the 7.5% gateway. 0.5% cash balance credit probably not equal to 0.5% contribution for gateway testing. And 0.5% accrual in DB is very unlikely to be exactly 0.5% contribution rate for gateway. If you are using the gateway and your requirement is 7.5% then all NHCEs that get any employer allocation must get 7.5% to pass gateway.

I've always took level amortization to mean, not less frequently then level amortization. That is you can't have negative amortization, ballon payments, interest only or similar but I see nothing wrong with making excess payments to reduce principal. Though much like making excess payments on your mortgage it doesn't reduce your future scheduled payments just pays the loan off soome than originally intented.

You can't retroactively terminate a plan. But what is the problem with terminating prospectively? You already have a 5500 filing requirement for PYB 7/1/13 and PSP has no required contribution.

Assuming she is now eligible for the plan and an NHCE which as a new employee she would be unless she has more than 5% ownership in 2013 directly or through attribution. If she is new, she didn't make over the comp limit in 2012.

For cross tested plans we send out a resolution approving the contribution allocation. Doesn't hurt to have if the IRS audits the Plan. But technically I don't think it is required.

Isn't rule actually to distribute as soon as administratevely feesable? I suppose an argument could be made that it is not administratviely feesable until the QDRO is issued. Might be a stretch but I'd doubt the IRS would challenge it too much.

What facts were mistaken? Some forms have a box for % of pay and another for straight $ amount. He mught have thought he was filling out the box for $50 and put it into the 50%. Just throwing it out there not that I actially believe it. Like you Im not sure where mistake of fact might come in on this one.

If the election for 50% was valid the participant is out of luck.

EPCRS would be the best way to correct.

don't be the last participant to return a withdrawal form? don't forget the 25 HCE restricted distributions. recertify? Is this a PBGC plan? candidate for distress termination?

Mine has never asked, small employer. My wife's employer did ask to show coverage about 2 years ago and I believe they requested a copy of marriage cert.

Plan fees will increase.