ETA Consulting LLC

In your computer program, you'd include a question: "does the $10,000 minimum apply". You would then include the contingent calculation if the answer is yes. It's a simple work around; but a question that would be asked. Good Luck!

Well, we determined by looking that the $50,000 reduced by the highest outstanding loan balance wasn't a consideration; and solved for the relevant calculation. It wasn't a coincidence, just a quicker way by immediately focusing on the relevant equation. Good Luck!

Remember that elective deferrals are "employer contributions" that are made at the election of the employee. Good Luck!

This is a good question. We know that the Lump Sum (for NUA) purposes is: 1) a payment within one taxable year of the employee's entire vested accrued benefit; 2) on account of death, age 59 1/2, severance from employment, or disability. We also know that for these purposes, all like-kind plans of the employer are treated as one plan. Your question centers on a determination as to whether the additional "life-time" RMD being paid to the participant's surviving spouse in the year of death (2013) is a payment on the account of death. I would argue that it is not. It is a payment that was already being made, but is now merely being distributed to a different person. The subsquent payments (above and beyond the required amount) would be amounts distributed on the account of death. This interpretation may be a little aggressive. But, in order to qualify as a lump sum, the payment must be made on the account of one of the aformentioned reasons. The RMD in this case was already set to be made (on account of age 70 1/2). The only question was who was going to receive it. Now, any additional amounts would be made to the spouse on the account of death. Once you look at it, the interpretation really doesn't appear to be that aggressive. I'm not sure if there are any Regulations that has ever addressed this particular scenario. Good Luck.

I don't see where that would be a problem; especially that every has right to an SDBA. I'm thinking the difference in the in-kind xfer ability is due to functional limitations on the platform that do not exist in the SDBA. Good Luck!

They can terminate since they are not doing it "during" the year. The issue you are referring to is for terminating the safe harbor "mid year". Good Luck!

No. A SEP is a cookie-cutter arrangement; void of that level of flexibility. Good Luck!

I "think" that once you are a covered service provider, you must list 'all' fees; regardless of what they are attributed to. I'm shooting from the hip on this one as I haven't read those rules in over two years; but that's the impression I got when I read them. Good Luck!

I am not sure if you're confusing the 408(b)(2) with 404(a)(5). The participant disclosure is under 404(a)(5) and would not apply since there is no participant direction. 408(b)(2) is for th employer to ascertain the costs of maintaining the plan; where the costs of the investments is very relevant. Good Luck!

To my understanding, that has always been the case. "IF" the DOL has evidence that a TPA is incompetent, they may audit the entire book of plans. For instance, suppose a TPA consistently provides false information on a Form 5500 and it becomes evident after auditing 3 or 4 plans with specific omissions. The DOL can begin to question whether every Form 5500 completed by that TPA is erroneous (intentional or otherwise), and audit that operation. Situations going beyond simple reporting issue and delving into infringing on employees rights under the plans are even worse. So, who's going to make an argument that they cannot do that Good Luck!

I think you just answered your own question. The 30 day notice issued before the beginning of the next year would do it. Good Luck!

You are correct. You would use Component Plan testing to avoid ABT. But once you go ABT, then "ALL" employees in "ALL" plans. Now, let's not begin the book of caveats (e.g. Union) :-) Good Luck!

I'm with BG5150 on this one. It is not conceivable that a rollover would be considered a contribution for this purpose. Heck, you don't even have to be an eligible employee in order to roll funds into the plan. The rollover account, itself, is not even counted in the Top Heavy Test. Your question, however, is a good one. I have having the same issue with employee after-tax (which appears to void the exemption from Top Heavy). Good Luck!

There is no RMD due in 2013 because the participant has died before their required beginning date. Hence, the spouse may directly roll over the full account balance into their own IRA. You should also note that the beneficiary is the spouse; not sure how the 5 year rule would apply. Let's assume the participant was age 50 and died. Since the beneficiary is the spouse, no distribution would be required until the participant would've turned age 70 1/2. That's like 20 years. But, to answer your question; the spouse may roll over the entire balance. Good Luck!

Not to the extent the "participant" is still employed. Good question, though. I would say "IF", and "when", the participant whose account was split is subject to being reported on the form, the QDRO alternate would be reported. I'm shooting from the hip on this one and did not actually research this particular fact pattern, but it would appear to be consistent since the QDRO balance is still considered the participant's (just payable to an alternate payee). Good Luck!

Agree. The participant may defer $5,500 and receive an employer contribution of $51,000; leaving zero in the ADP test. Just adding another example to show how it works. Good Luck!

How much of his Compensation is received by working under the union contract? To what extent are his benefits in the plan derived from collective bargaining? Good Luck!

Benefits, Rights & Features must be currently and effectively available on a non-discriminatory basis. Good Luck!

Sure, but it is rather redundant. You can set up a solo K plan and fund both your deferral (up to $23,000) and an Employer Contribution (to the extent you do not exceed the 415 limit). You don't need two plans to do that. Good Luck!

I use Dropbox. There is no login because the server is downloaded directly to your computer. Hence, If your computer is password protected, they there would be no access to Dropbox. At the end of the day, it's something that you'd have to vet for yourself. Good Luck!

Have them obtain a tax ID number. Good Luck!

Well, you're looking at two distinct issues: 1) In the year the plan failed the non-discrimination test (e.g. 410(b)), you had a certain amount of time to fix it after the plan year ended (12 months). When you failed to meet that standard you failed to continue to qualify; which introduces VCP. Now that you've established the need for VCP for the past failures that have gone unnoticed and uncorrected; you get into the endless methods you may employ during any particular year in order to get the tests to pass. The document would, typically, not say how to correct a 410(b) failure, but would merely state that you must pass 410(b). That failure is your issue. 2) It's math from here. What additional contributions could have been made by the employer to get the plan to pass the average benefits test? What employees could've been added to a plan in order to get them to pass? When type of prospective design may be done to ensure the same violation doesn't continue to occur year after year in the future (expecially that we are now at the end of 2013)? I am assuming from your OP that you're mainly attempting answer the questions in item 2? The solution, here, doesn't always present as a one-size fits all. In attempting to resolve, you may come up with some type of component plan testing that you've never considered that result in a passing test. My point is that it becomes a 'trial and error' process as opposed to 'here's what you do'. I know it doesn't directly answer your question, but wanted to ensure we're on the same page as to what this true issues are. Good Luck!

No. You wouldn't be required to offer it under the S-Corp where you are 100%; even if your ownership in the 50% was at 90%. But, to answer your question, (on the surface), you are not a controlled group; so the existence of 100% owned business is irrelevant. You would want a more detailed analysis (with the concept of excludable shares and attribution being possible). Good Luck!

Not to the 401(k) source. Contributions to this account must be at the election of the participant. This is why they are, typically, referred to as elective deferrals. Good Luck!

I agree. They are, apparently confusing the entry date for plan participation as a controlling factor for making changing in the rate of elective deferrals. I could see if their argument was 12/1/2013; but would still agree with you that an earlier date would be admissible if it is administratively feasible. Good Luck!