Bill Presson

Think through this and I think you'll be able to get to the right answers. 1. Dr kept the corporation but sold assets. It's really not any different than selling the physical parts. 2. Corporation continues because Dr didn't sell stock. 3. Plans continue because the corporation is still the sponsor. No plan year change. 4. All employees, other than Dr terminated in September. 5. So now you look at the allocation rules for each plan. DB & PS have no last day rule, so continue as normal. 6. You say the 401(k) has a last day rule, but usually that is for the PS component and you also say he has a PS plan. Not sure of what's really going on. But if he has a last day rule, the terminated ees aren't eligible. But if he's getting a contribution, then you fail 410(b). Either fix it according to how the plan requires (if in document) or do an -11g amendment which would allow you to allocate to all the terminated people if desired. Does that help? WCP

Would there be a testing issue if the ER just makes a smaller contribution? Assuming it's top heavy, you'll have to give at least a 6% contribution of the 7/1-12/31 comp anyway. But if everyone is in their own group, just give a lower percentage.

You'll need two 1099s. We typically have processed it as two separate distributions and two fees because of the extra work.

Agree with 1/1/16 assuming the document requires the completion of the 12 months of service before entry. Tom has given an additional example of how it could be earlier.

How can someone work 1000 hours from January 1, 2015 - May 2, 2015, but not work 1000 hours from May 2, 2014 - May 2, 2015??

Not 100% true. Eligibility is NOT a protected benefit. Now MOST of the time employees who enter under the old eligibility are grandfathered when eligibility if made more restrictive for PR purposes but it's not always the case. So in the OP example IF the participant's eligibility was grandfathered then she would be eligible for PS contribution. On the other hand if she was excluded when the eligibility changed she would have to satisfy the new eligibility to once again become a participant and would not be eligible for a PS contribution. That's correct. I wasn't thinking about excluding a division or location, etc.

Once the employee becomes a participant, subsequent changes to the eligibility are irrelevant. So if the 2015 PS requires a 1000 hours and employment on the last day, just ask if she satisfied that requirement. If so, then she is eligible. WCP

1. A controlled group is a single employer. 2. Filing is not dependent on employees; it's dependent on participants.

Brightscope?

I bet the guys that took over the federal facility in Oregon have an attorney that backs their case. But most attorneys probably wouldn't agree with that particular interpretation. I see Zane in the same vein. No extra charge for the rhyme.

Look at this Employee Plan News. I think this addresses the situation specifically. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/epn_2012_1.pdf It's under the "We're Glad You Asked #2"

Penchecks is good. I think Millennium Trust will as well.

I know that Alabama does not have state tax on DB pension payments. But I don't have a list, though I remember seeing one a few years ago.

I don't specifically remember NC, but Florida seems to do something in that area every so often.

Wanna share the provider name?

I've had a few people cuss at me; mostly participants wanting me to give them their cash right then. In any case, glad your daughter is okay. ERs are scary for kids.

The example is an employee who elected a dollar amount per pay period. The attorney is saying that an employee who elects a percentage of pay must be stopped at the comp limit as suggested by My 2 Cents. In this case, the document does not limit deferrals beyond the 402(g) limit. If the plan does not limit the compensation to the 401(a)(17) limit for contributions, then the plan should not have stopped until the participants reached the deferral 402(g) limit. So frustrating. And I think the auditors are being silly as well.

I think he can be trustee, but (without looking it up) I thought the real estate had to have an independent custodian. Might be wrong.

Someone will have to be custodian and pay taxes, etc. Probably should use a company like this: http://www.theentrustgroup.com/self-directed-ira-benefits

Many times a 401(k) will be a better choice than a SEP. But it doesn't look like this is one of them. I agree with Belgarath.

Thank you.

The thing I hate worst is when people want advice but don't provide all the information that might be needed to actually provide the advice. This isn't 20 questions. If you want advice, post your situation and stop wasting peoples time. Good grief.

Kevin C is correct. I misread the OP message and thought it terminated in 2016. Sorry about that.

Peter, Generally the fact sheets are created by a large provider like Newkirk or Broadridge. They get the data they use from a data dump of information from the fund companies or another large provider like Blue River. Generally the fact sheets (whether they include the actual restrictions or just a reference that there might be restrictions) are correct when created. But that doesn't mean they will always remain correct. The daily recordkeeping system that we had in my former job would allow a flag where the participant could click a link to see the specific restrictions because the fact sheet might be out of date. Also (as hr mentioned), typically a flag would pop up if there was the possibility of short term redemption fees or market timing restrictions. With all that said, it was practically impossible to ensure that every single fund in every single plan remained up to date every single day. The fund companies routinely made changes in those items. So when a trade would be entered, it was always possible that the fund company flagged it on their system and then notified the custodian. But remember that the fund companies almost never have the participant data. So they are looking at the large trades. How closely they monitor the trades depends on how the custodian sets up the accounts (omnibus or individual plan). So the fund company would flag a trade and send a request (22-c2) to the custodian who forwards it to the recordkeeper to run a report and determine if there is a violation. All in all not a great system, but there are very few fund companies that even do it any more. The last two years I was at WA, I think we only got one 22-c2 request.

I can't comprehend why the employer would do it that way. But I don't believe you can offset the cost by the additional compensation. The regs don't even allow you to take into account that cafeteria premiums are pre tax. They need to take a look at what they're doing and why and revamp it for 2016, IMHO.