Scuba 401

true. but if they don't work but get paid for 3 months or 6 months the most they can get is 501 under that section correct?

so if they get paid for three months or six months they still only get 501 hours?

yes no more than 501.

it includes hours they are paid and also says includes for payment no duties but no duties. so i guess that is the answer.

i don't think the pandemic makes a difference on this but if an employee is paid during the pandemic but doesn't work and they don't work 1000 hours, do they get a year of service for vesting? plan defines a year of service as 1000 hours.

5500's are being filed. i believe the partners are the only ones left in the plan.

the partners of the firm were not paid but the employees were.

maybe strange but the client terminated his cash balance plan and paid out a few participants who also terminated employment. a couple of years later they want to revive the plan. is it possible to un-terminate and restate the plan or just restate the plan effective January 1, 2019? trying to avoid having a totally new plan if possible.

a little more information - nothing changing hands. the A entity is just going away. employment being given to all the doctors and staff. do you still consider it a merger?

do not have a lot of details but A and B are merging. B is the survivor. the transition rule states that acquisition or disposition could be a merger involving a change in employer of the employees. See the Reg below: (f)Certain acquisitions or dispositions. Section 410(b)(6)(C) (relating to certain acquisitions or dispositions) provides a special rule whereby aplan may be treated as satisfying section 410(b) for a limited period of time after an acquisition or disposition if it satisfies section 410(b) (without regard to the special rule) immediately before the acquisition or disposition and there is no significant change in the plan or in the coverage of theplan other than the acquisition or disposition. For purposes of section 410(b)(6)(C) and this paragraph (f), the terms “acquisition” and “disposition” refer to an asset or stock acquisition, merger, or other similar transaction involving a change in employer of the employees of a trade or business. so what exactly does a transaction have to look like to be considered a merger.in this case two medical type groups merging with one becoming the survivor but i don't think any money or stock is changing hands. if the term merger is a term of art what would you want to know to determine if a merger occurred?

In order cover all pay periods, I think my 2018 plan year allocations would be based on comp from 4/1/17 – 3/31/18 (old FYE) plus comp from 4/1/18 – 12/31/18 (new FYE). This is a 21 month period, but if I don’t include all pay and use only 12 months, wouldn’t that be a cutback in benefits? How would I justify not providing allocations for the 4/1/17 – 12/31/17 period or alternatively not providing allocations for the 4/1/18 – 12/31/18 period?”

Dealing with a cash balance/DC combo. The Plan defines Comp period as the 12 month fiscal period ending within the plan year. Example: 3/31 Fiscal Year End. The 12 month comp period would be 4/1/2017 – 03/31/2018. This plan has 4 entities (control group) participating. 2 w/ 3/31 fiscal years and 2 w/ 12/31 fiscal years. The employer switched fiscal years after the completion of the 3/31 fiscal year to a calendar year. I technically have two fiscal year ends (21 months of comp) within the 12 month plan year. 4/1/17 – 03/31/18 and now 4/1/2018 – 12/31/18. The plan year has not been changed and continues to be a 12 month calendar year. We want to be able to include all 21 months of compensation for funding purposes during 2018 and then going forward 2019’s compensation will follow the 12 month plan year. How do we include compensation from 4/1-17 – 12/31/18 for funding purposes for those 3/31 fiscal EE’s that had their fiscal year switched to 12/31? Can this be accomplished in the 2018 plan year?

Sponsor acquired through a stock purchase a company that had a 401(k). some participants have variable annuities as investments in the plan. the new fiduciary wants to know what his options are as he doesn't want to have a legal duty to monitor the annuities. my thought is restrict new money investments and wait for the surrender charges to burn off and then force the participants to liquidate. are there any other alternatives for example like maybe quarantining the annuities in another plan and just writing a memo that says you didnt chose them have no expertise etc.

two 401(k) plans are merging as part of an asset sale. Plan A contains a few variable annuities and is being merged into plan B. Plan B does not want he variable annuities. what are Plan B's options with respect to the annuities. i was thinking worst case if they had to they could take the annuities but not allow other participants to purchase any more. but the acquiring plan sponsor would prefer to either force participants to roll them or liquidate.

never mind. i figured out that A-orgs/FSO's have to be two professional service corps.

i have a doctor client who is a minority owner in a dialysis center. they send patients to the center for treatment. it seems to meet the definition of an A-org/FSO affiliated service group but this is problematic for me. the center does dialysis for many other doctor groups. it is also owned by a majority owner. what if there were other doctor groups that owned a piece? how could the center be part of two affiliated service groups? am i missing something?

anyone on here for RIA's that also administer retirement plans? I would like to discuss how you deal with distributions from plans in light of the new SEC custody rule.

is a fund change notice to participants required when the share class is being changed due to action by the fund board of directors. expenses will be lower.

the participants (doctors) want to form the LLC but it would be open to all participants. they want to fund the LLC with the assets in their respective plan accounts. the partners would be involved obviously and facilitate the use of the funds. they want to use the funds from the LLC to purchase real estate and lease the real estate to the medical practice. larry i understand they wouldnt be able to access their plan accounts unless the fiduciaries were involved and are willing to make the LLC a plan investment which they want to do.

the LLC is set up by participants (employees and owners) in the plan and funded with plan assets which are used to purchase the building which is then leased to the medical practice.

who is the disqualified person? the LLC?

employees of medical group will form LLC with plan assets which will purchase property and lease it to medical group. LLC will be open to all employees/doctors/participants. My initial thought is it is a PT because the owners of the medical practice are benefiting from the use of plan assets to lease property to their practice. however i am trying to pin down the legal basis and whether there are partnership interest thresholds that they might be able to stay below to avoid the PT. any thoughts?

larry are you saying the employer (medical practice) is a disqualified person? I don't think it is without more substantial ownership. on the other hand i still am sticking with my conflict of interest PT. Luke does it change anything if doctors who are not employees of the medical practice invest in the REIT and at some time in the future become shareholders in the practice? my feeling is it becomes a PT at that time as opposed to at the initial investment.

2 scenarios - 1) Employee Doctor who is an officer of the medical practice in which he works wants to use IRA funds to purchase closely held REIT (owned by other doctors in the practice. Practice would rent office space from the REIT. 2) is a 2% owner of the medical practice wants to do the same as the non-owner. Are these Prohibited Transactions? I think they are conflict of interest PT's as they clearly benefit from the transactions as officer and owner of the medical practice. I do not believe the practice is a disqualified person under 4975.

can the other spouse if not covered by their own employer plan have their own regular IRA and is it fully deductible ?