ETA Consulting LLC

I think it is eligible. Just look at is as large rate of pay for the first hour of work. Hence, it "is", in effect, related to services provided. I cannot fathom it being an issue. Good Luck!

You can set up individual accounts fairly quickly, but the hard-fast 10/1 date doesn't apply to that. So, a checking account being the only trust asset will suffice for that purpose. For the safe harbor provisions, you must allow an effective 3 months of deferrals. In many instances, the first payroll date after September 30th may not be until the 2nd week in October; giving you more time to actually set up the individual accounts. That shouldn't be a major show-stopper. Good Luck!

I find that meeting my ERPA requirements (a Government issued license) satisfies the ASPPA issued certifications (CPC, QPA, QKA, TGPC). ERPA requires 72 hours of CPE over a three year period; however, you may not take less than 16 hours in any one of those years. A minimum of 2 hours of Ethics must be taken each year. Not sure if this helps. Good Luck!

Sorry, I didn't see the followup. I'm not speaking to the Form 5500, but nothing would be deemed when an actual distribution has taken place. However, in framing the correction, you're right that an 'actual' (not deemed) distribution was given from the plan when there was no distributable event. That is what you are correcting in light of the failure to limit the loan amount. So, if I were submitting the loan correction under VCP, you will see where the Model Form explains the correction. [[Have the participant repay the excess to the plan and continue to making payments of the remainder under the correct loan terms]]. You may also be able to take advantage of a reduced user fee for the filing. Good Luck!

Your question goes to whether or not there is an impermissible "Service Class" exclusion in a plan that excludes Seasonal Employees. The IRS did issue Regulations stating that you may not exclude employees by classes that are based on customary work schedules (i.e. part-time, or temporary). The position, as I remember, was a blanket 'you cannot do it', but the reasoning was that it is possible for a part-time employee to work 1000 hours during a 12 month period; and you would have to exclude him on the basis of that time instead of a class that is defined by the customary schedule. With that understanding, I have seen two sets of eligibility within the same plan. A plan may say full-time employees are eligibility immediately while part-time employees must satisfy a year of service (which effectively gets around this rule since the class is not be excluded (but merely held to a different standard). As for 'seasonal', I would agree with you that there may be an issue. Good Luck!

No problem Austin. Fiduciary... The problem with attempting to do this in a profit sharing plan is that qualified plans must receive """substantial and recurring contributions'''' in order to be valid. The Money Purchase Plan is subject to a fixed formula (even zero), the would appear to preempt the substantial and recurring requirement. Good Luck!

Sure, you may match on the entire plan year Compensation if you design it correctly in the document.. You would not use payroll period match. Just be sure to draft the document correctly. Good Luck!

Let's rephrase the question. You would like to know whether or not life insurance policies are considered 'eligible assets' for Form 5500 SF purposes. I do not see why they wouldn't be. I believe that they have readily determinable fair market value; and we know they are issued by an insurance company. Good Luck!

Because I read 'monthly' even; despite the fact it clearly stated quarterly. This is why I always try to explain my reasoning. So, when I am clearly wrong, I you seen what I missed :-) But you're right, it would be 1/1; the first entry date after the 6 month period. Good Luck!

9/16/2011 to 5/18/2012 is not a year, so you would span the service to get 5/25/2011 to 9/14/2012; which meets and exceeds the 6 month requirement. His entry would've been 12/1/2011, even though he wasn't employed then; so he would enter immediate upon his rehire on 5/18/2012. His plan entry date is 12/1/2011. Good Luck!

As for the note, you'd write it on Form 8950 Line 7c. Good Luck!

No, you don't submit to a DL. However, you include as a reason for why you are not submitting for a DL :"PLAN USES A PREAPPROVED DOCUMENT". It is then, treated the same as if you submitted. I do it is all the time as I once faced this question and it is what the IRS agent instructed me to do. Good Luck!

As a rule, you cannot require conditions extending beyond the plan year end (i.e. 1/1) in order to receive an allocation. As a practical matter, I'm sure if you were to tell such terminating participant that the line was arbitrarily extended, there would be no year end terminations. If you are 'employed at any time on 12/31', then you should receive the allocation. The part that 'may not' be subject to interpretation is when a top heavy contribution is due. Also, I'm with ESOP Guy that the Plan Administrator must interpret their plan. There is, however, another caveat; that interpretation must be reasonable. Good Luck!

We know that prevention of eviction or foreclosure is a condition for hardship. If that is the case, then it would be appropriate to ascertain what the Plan Administrator would require as proof that you need a hardship to prevent foreclosure. I don't believe the foreclosure process would be necessary, but that a hardship merely be necessary in order to prevent it. What constitutes proof to the Plan Administrator would be a question for that plan administrator. Just remember, you may have to go through a few steps to prove that a hardship exists. Good Luck!

You're right, but missed a point. The statutes (and the plan language) would require the catchup be made universally available. Hence, there is no plan override for the ability of each individual to make the catchup (when the plan actually has a catchup provision). So, the plan should have language (maybe in the BPD) that says whatever the limit imposed by the plan, the participant will be allowed a full catchup amount if the plan actually allows catchup. In other words, when the plan allows catchup, the plan must allow each and every participant age 50 or above the opportunity to take advantage of their full catchup. Good Luck!

I agree. As long as you continue to meet the restatements and reporting requirements, there wouldn't appear to be anything pressing to require a termination. Many self employed individuals keep their plans open because they are invested in old fixed annuities paying at higher rates. Plan termination would require them to find other investments. So, it's beneficial to them to keep the plan open in order to retain their current investments. I've researched it before an have never seen anything that would mandate a plan termination. Good Luck!

Well, you wouldn't default "the loan", but instead treat the excess amount as a taxable distribution. That would, then, become your correction. Good Luck!

No. The issue is that the SIMPLE IRA has a exclusive plan rule that requires it be the only plan that receives contributions during any calendar year. Good Luck!

No. This belongs in the Humor section. Get it??? The "investment advisor" actually advised the client on plan matters that go beyond the scope of investments. LOL. I get it. Good Luck!

I just skimmed your question, but will outline the parameters used to determine whether the trust is able to get a lifetime extension under the RMD rules. There are 4 requirements a trust must meet in order to become eligible for the lifetime payout. 1) Valid under state law. 2) Irrevocable at death of the IRA Owner. 3) Beneficiaries identified (or identifiable) under the trust language. 4) Trust document must be furnished to the IRA Custodian. Good Luck!

In a DB plan, any eligible employee who works at least 1000 hours during the year must be credited with a benefit. The last day of the plan year concept is specific to DC plans only. Good Luck!

There are a few exemptions from withholding on 'cashless' distributions. Since the loan offset would be treated as a taxable distribution, and no cash is distributed, then there would be no withholding. You would get the same result if the participant immediately rolled the entire account over to an IRA; leaving the loan offset as the only taxable amount. Also, your series of events is a bit off: The loan offset occurs immediately upon a distributable event when the loan is defaulted; it has no bearing on an actual distribution request being completed. QDROphile pointed this out. Good Luck!

That may challenge the notion of loans being made available to participants (or beneficiaries) on a reasonably equivalent basis. I wouldn't do it. Good Luck!

Keep in mind that it is only a technicality that documents to not require favorable determination letters for qualification. The caveat to that has always been it is prudent to have one. Why? Because, we know that you must have reliance on a DL or Opinion/Advisory Letter in order to qualify for Self-Correction of minor errors. That opens the possibility that the IRS may audit every individually designed plan. Regardless of the errors that may have been fixed, they would not be eligible for self correction. Now, if the rules on self-correction were to change where you did not require reliance on a favorable letter, then this issue may not be as drastic. As far as cost reduction, they could've simply raised the filing fee for receiving favorable determination letters instead of making it impossible to get one. I did enjoy the comments and insight on this topic. Good Luck!

Without knowing the exact details, there are two thoughts that come immediately to mind about this scenario: 1) In a DB plan, all benefits (including a death benefit) are defined under the terms of the plan. That doesn't appear to open the door to individual elections of whether to 'invest' in insurance (unlike in a DC plan). So, it would be interesting to read a DB provision stating that one person will get insurance but the other does not. 2) The legal department of an insurance company will never give any statement that should be considered relevant to any plan other than one actually sponsored by the insurance company for the benefit of their employees. Not being sarcastic, but insurance agents sell insurance; not administer plans. The legal departments of the insurance companies do not provide legal advise for administering plans. Okay, 1 more: 3) Obviously, in a DC plan; the plan may be written to allow participants to invest in life insurance. Hence, this will be an individual decision made by each participant. Of course, with any plan, the incidental limits will apply. Given all this, it is up to the TPA/actuarial firm servicing the plan(s) to ensure the plan(s) meet all the form and operational requirements for qualification. This will include having the plan language necessary to determine the benefits being given and the non-discrimination tests necessary to prove that benefits, rights, and features are being provided on a non-discriminatory basis; just to name a couple. These are just thoughts because I'm not sure I understand your question (or if you're asking one). Good Luck!