BonoConsilio

Where a see-through trust is named as an IRA beneficiary, may IRA distributions be reported on the 1099R directly to the trust beneficiary? This is particularly key where the beneficiary is younger at a low income tax bracket, the trust grantor intends to control the IRA fund flows to the trust beneficiary, and to avoid the trust's higher income tax rates while retaining IRA distributions in the trust. Reporting 1099R directly to individual beneficiary seemed to be the practice when see-through trusts first came out in early 2000s, but that reporting has changed over time?

Can multiple distributions from an IRA within a 60 day period be rolled over as 1 amount in compliance with the 60 day rollover rule. For example. Day 1 - $4,000 distribution (no taxes w/h) f/ IRA 1 Day 40 - $5,000 distribution (no taxes w/h) f/ IRA 1 Day 40 - $500 distribution (no taxes w/h) f/ IRA 1 Day 55 - $9,500 rolled over back to IRA 1. Does this comply with the 60 day rollover rule? Example 2: Day 1 - $60,000 distribution (no taxes w/h) f/ 401k #1 Day 35 - $42.35 distribution (residual income) (no taxes w/h) f/ 401k #1 Day 55 - $60,042.35 rolled over to IRA #2 Does this comply with the 60 day rollover rule? If example 2 complies, but example 1 doesn't, why? In example 1, what is the maximum amount eligible for the 60 day rule?: $9,500; $5,500; or $5,000? I would argue that regardless of the number of distributions within a 60 day period, the total amount eligible as 1 amount rolled over is the total amount distributed within the 60 day period as one continuous amount distributed over multiple days. Neither 26 USC 408, nor regulations under CFR 1.408 limit or define the number of distributions for 1 rollover. Example 3: same facts as example 1 except IRA owner rolls over $9,500 to IRA #2 at a different institution. Same result? Other opinions?

Ok, thanks, Lou. And I thnk you mean "normal", not necessarily "common", no? Even if standard coverage over a non-calendar year is permissible, I would anticipate that to be a normal exception, not a common feature. No, it doesn't have anything to do with ACA. I am curious why a plan would elect coverage over a non-calendar year. That makes it difficult for an EE to switch to an EE's spouse's coverage at another ER, with coverage which does follow a calendar year.

Can anyone point me to a regulation regarding the beginning and ending of a coverage period for a health plan that does not coincide with a calendar year? A local school district has a coverage period beginning 9/1 and ending 8/31. How normal/common is it to use a coverage period that does not coincide with a calendar year? This is the first time for me to come across this.

I'd correct that to: CEBS is a broad benefits certification that includes group insurance and compensation in addition to retirement plans. It generally serves a different different customer base that the other designations listed. To the OP: You mention that you're an atty... If you intend to stay in the ERISA and benefits arena, then exposure to the knowledge contained in the CEBS could be useful. The three key areas of group, retirement and comp are all areas that require a competent atty to consult and advise. So I would answer your question w/ a question: where do you want to go from here? masteff, my profession is in trust administration, and as the trust department manager, I have needed to broaden and deepen my understanding of DC plans for which my firm serves as trustee, and as administrator for our firm's plan. So, I am already where I want to be: developing and enhancing my depth of understanding of retirement plans. As I don't have a mentor, I affiliated with ERPA and QPA as a formal way to direct my efforts in that development. As I also help administer the firm's VEBA, I have taken an interest in CEBS too, but don't know that I can dedicate as much time to CE there at this point.

I apologize, PMacduff - I wrote that quickly. I realize that you were being funny and I laughed to myself when I read it. Sorry for being so dry. I honestly don't think that a QPA holder should be automatically awarded an ERPA because ERPA is designed to certify you for a different purpose. I just as strongly don't believe that ERPA holders should be awarded a QPA primarily because of the coverage of the DB material - or lack thereof. I wouldn't have an issue with an ERPA being automatically awarded the QKA designation because the QKA is lower level. Have a great holiday weekend. I agreed that the ERPA designation should not automatically earn someone a QPA. I am furious that ASPPA has done that because it totally discounts the work of those of us who did pass the tests. In a few years one will need to ask every QPA if the earned it or not. Given the continuing education requirements for ERPA and QPA, and that most of ASPPA's QPA coursework is eligible for CE credit, I suspect that ERPA-QPAs will make-up any gap with CE in time. This may be ASPPA's way of bringing ERPAs into the fold so that they are encouraged to have comparable educational backgrounds. Sorry about bringing up any contentious point. If it makes you feel better, I am also a licensed attorney, and I am proud of the work I put in to earn that.

I handle the employee benefit accounts in our Trust Department. I passed the ERPA exam this week, and I sent in my ERPA enrollment to the IRS. Once I receive my ERPA credentials, I will be eligible to recieve the ASPPA designation as a QPA too. I presume that the QPA designation is above the QKA designation since ASPPA requires additional course work beyond QKA to earn the QPA. My primary question is how do the various credentials compare with one another in terms of credibility? QPA vs. QKA vs APA vs APR vs CEBS? Are there any other comparable credentials? Which of them is recognized in the field as the most prestigious?

IRA beneficiary already received her 2011 RMD 30 days ago. Now she would like to rollover a part of that RMD back to her IRA within the 60 day limit, and distribute that amount as a "qualified charitable distribution". I don't see a problem with this. For reporting purposes we would report: 1. original RMD distribution + additional qualified charitable distribution on 1099-R 2. part of RMD distribution in an amount equal to QCD on 5498 as rollover She would still be meeting her RMD since the QCD and the rollover amount net zero. Any problems with this?

IRC section 219(d)(1) does not allow for deductions to traditional IRA's once an individual is 70 1/2. (There is an exception for Roths SEPs & SIMPLEs.) Does 219(d)(1) apply to 401k's, or any other code section or regulation have a similar disallowance for 401k's? If not, and in the absence of any 401k plan provision, can a 71 year old 401k participant continue to contribute to the plan?

The reason I do not think it would be handled the same is because Bank B is an "affiliated employer". Both Bank A and Bank B continue as separate, but now affiliated banks because they are owned by the same holding company. In the other case, Bank C was never an "affiliated employer" before it ceased to exist, but Bank C employees are now Bank A employees.

Take this simple hypothetical. VEBA is run on cash basis. So, it has no set-aside amount. Member contributions (X) to VEBA equal VEBA claims, fees and other expenses paid from VEBA every year (Y). However, during the year, contributions are held in a tax-exempt muni money fund until VEBA expenses are paid. The accumulation of interest (Z) from the money fund at the end of the year is UBTI. That amount (Z) is an excess of the set-aside amount, which is zero. If X equals Y continually every year, the entire accumulation of Z from year to year will be UBTI every year, no?

Plan doc allows Service to count towards eligibility for "Affiliated Employers". For example, Bank A sponsors Plan 1; Bank A Holding Company acquires Bank B. Bank B adopts Plan 1 and Bank B employees' Service counts toward eligibility. Question: Bank C fails. Bank A takes over Bank C from Regulator (i.e. not an acquisition like Bank B). Bank C employees are now Bank A employees. Employees' Service with Bank C count towards eligibility for Bank A's Plan? I think not. Any other opinions or determinative guidance on this?

Which method is preferred for reporting income for a NQDC - Rabbi Trust? Why?

For purposes of IRAs, is there any real distinction between trustee or custodian? 1. A "bank" may be either a trustee of an IRA under IRC section 408(a)(2) or the "bank" may be a custodian of an IRA under section 408(h). 2. A "person" (a non-bank, i.e. brokerage firm, insurance company, etc.) may apply to the IRS to be a trustee of an IRA under IRC section 408(a)(2) or a custodian of an IRA under section 408(h). 3. IRC section 408(h) treats a custodial IRA as an IRA trust, and the IRA custodian as an IRA trustee. 4. The "Specific Instructions" for both form 5303 (IRA Trust) and 5305-A (Custodial IRA) both state that: "Article VIII and any that follow it may incorporate additional provisions that are agreed to by the grantor/depositor and trustee/custodian to complete the agreement. They may include, for example, definitions, investment powers, voting rights, exculpatory provisions, amendment and termination, removal of the trustee/custodian, trustee/custodian’s fees, state law requirements, beginning date of distributions, accepting only cash, treatment of excess contributions, prohibited transactions with the grantor/depositor, etc. " With that in mind, why would a "bank" set up a Custodial IRA, for example, for an IRA CD, and in the trust/investment department of the bank set up its accounts as IRA Trusts? Given the Specific Instructions regarding Article VIII, do I understand correctly that either an IRA Trust or a Custodial IRA may be used for a self-directed IRA or a managed IRA? For IRA purposes, do the terms "trust/trustee" or "custody/custodian" carry much of any of the conventional meanings as they are understood beyond there usage in the IRC? If there is a meaningful distinction, in what situation might a brokerage firm prefer to apply to become an IRA trustee instead of an IRA custodian?

The 2008 990 asks some new questions related to tax-exempt entities including governance and policies of the organization such as "conflict of interest" and "whistleblower" policies. These questions do not seem particularly relevant to medical/health plans exempt under 501©(9) as opposed to a 501©(3) or other tax-exempt organization. How are these questions being answered for VEBA's like a medical/health plan in that Part VI and in schedule O? I'm inclined to just state "not applicable" on schedule O for many of the questions.