ETA Consulting LLC

No. They are not subject to non-discrimination testing. Hence, there would be no need to ensure a non-discriminatory definition of Comp for any plan purpose. Good Luck!

The 'true-up' would be calculated through the date the employer amends the plan to suspend the contributions. Good Luck!

They cannot. They can only designate one financial institution (provider) to receive the contributions. Good Luck!

Sure, he can take a 'taxable' distribution and pay the loan off. He'll be taxed on the distribution instead of the loan. No problem. Good Luck!

"To the extent that a corrective distribution would otherwise have been required" means just the portion that should have been refunded under the failed test. Good Luck!

No. It must be a trust with a written plan (which was always a requirement). But an employer contribution, alone, would not create the need for non-discrimination testing in a 403(b)(9). Good Luck!

No. She is entitled to a monthly payout at NRA; which happens to be funded by the annuity. Depending on the terms of the written 412(i) [Which is now 412(e)], if she has a lump sum payout, it would not be diminished by any terms of the annuity. Good Luck!

It is a 415 violation since his 415 limit is zero. You may correct now under the current plan terms; no big deal. Good Luck!

They are still plan assets under the plan's trust. The participant's involvement is, generally, limited to investment direction; they must still get approval from the plan's trustee for distributions. Good Luck!

You are. There are going to be record keeping considerations with respect to designated Roth amounts that are distributable at various points in time due to these transfers. Good Luck!

"More than 20% but up to 80%" would allow a maximum disparity of 4.3%. I think that is what you are saying. The document should've been drafted to say 80% plus $1 as the integration level to ensure it was 'more than' in order to get to the 5.4%. So, I'm with you and Lou S. on this one. Good Luck!

Sure it can. The same principle is tied to loans. There is only one calculation made when determining the amount that 'may be' taken. You, then, compare that limit to the amount in the source you want to receive funds from. You may take 100% from that source, even though the limit was applied to money that was actually deposited in other sources. Good Luck!

Don't forget you can also fund a spousal Roth IRA (or maybe even a spousal deductible traditional IRA) depending on your income level. This may give you an additional $5,500 for 2013. Good Luck!

Tiredbutnotretired, Is your employer an LLC taxed as a partnership? If so, are you one of the partners? From the fact pattern, they appear to treat you as a partner if the company. Just curious.

An EPCRS filing is with the IRS for 'qualification failures'. Hence, a submission would protect the client "from the IRS" for only those items included in the EPCRS submission. So, if the plan sponsor it under examination "by the IRS", then it would be too late to submit volutarily in order to receive that protection. With that said, the DOL examination is entirely a separate process and would have no bearing on the ability to submit under EPCRS. Good Luck!

You may disregard service for vesting, but not participation. Good Luck!

Would argue 9/15 for both since it 'the tax filing deadline (including extensions)'. Good Luck!

Deductible is not the same a deducted. It is deductible regardless of whether or not you actually deduct it. Good Luck!

Yes. When you take over sponsorship of an existing plan, you become the responsible party for any qualification defects (current and prior). This is something to consider when making this type of decision. Good Luck!

Yes, because it is definitely determinable. How you test it (and the additional testing required) is the real question. We know that 410(b) would pass at 100% since everyone is "eligible to receive" the match should they defer at or above 4%. However, for those who defer, but at a rate of less than 4%, there would likely be a Benefits, Rights, and Features test required for those deferral rates less than 4%. Hypothetically, if HCEs were the only ones deferring at or above 4%, then this test would fail; because when you test at a 3% rate of deferrals, these HCEs would be the only ones deferring and not receiving a match. I "think" that's how it would work. Good Luck!

I think it would, but only with respect to the 415 deadline. Good Luck!

I'm with Belgarath on this one. There is enough flexibility to keep the match while changing some other items. You may exclude HCEs, limit the compensation used for HCEs, or use an entirely different definition of Compensation (that satisfies 414(s)) in order to get to the limit. What you cannot do is arbitrarily state that no one will receive a match greater than $10,000. You "may", however, get to that same effect by changing some other variables. Personally, I'd draft the plan to ensure these items impact HCEs only (for instance, limit HCE compensation to $200,000 instead of $250,000). Good Luck!

It is 'eligible' for rollover; just not to an IRA. The life policy 'may' be liquidated in the plan and those proceeds may be rolled over or the policy may be rolled over to another qualified plan. So, there is no restriction against rolling it over. The only restriction is that you cannot have a life insurance policy in the IRA. Your position was 'partially' correct: that because it was a cashless distribution it was exempted from withholding. The issue is that not all non-cash items distributed from the plan would be exempted from the withholding requirements. Life Insurance is the item that is not exempted, but a participant loan (or non-transferrable annuity) would be exempt. Good Luck!

Actually, the life insurance (unlike loans) is not exempted from the 20% required withholding under IRC Section 3405. So, you must find the cash from somewhere. Good Luck!

Keep in mind the two years apply "ONLY" in the event the individual isn't exempted from the 10% early distribution penalty. Hence, if the individual is age 59 1/2, then there isn't a two year period. Just a little clarification. But, I agree with everything you stated. Good Luck!