ETA Consulting LLC

Using the logic derived from when a qualified plan is no longer subject to ERISA, I'd say "you don't have to file merely because you've previously filed". This happens often when a plan is left with the owner as the only employee. So, you just stop filing. It may look strange, but if questioned you'd show why you are not required to file. Good Luck!

That is your answer Good Luck!

I make that argument all the time. At some point, it is no longer an oversight but a potential free ride. What that point is; I don't know. Just think, If I can give an request and it's not followed to the letter; what would compel me (as a participant) to come forward and request a correction when I can wait a couple of years in order to build up the corrective amounts. This, as any other thing, is merely an argument to make. Being an argument, there are 1 million sides; and this is just one. With that said, you could file with the IRS and recommend a different correction (e.g. reduced make-up amount). Good Luck!

You're looking at it after "all" the SE taxes and Pension Contributions have been removed. This is why it's typically called a "circular" calculation; since the percentage would be after all reductions. Good Luck!

You could file a VCP and document the series of events. It appears that the Form 5498 issued reflected the contribution as an IRA contribution instead of a SEP contribution. Remember, it is not necessarily "account" specific since a SEP is "technically" a traditional IRA. With that said, the classification of the "type" of contribution would be reflected on the Form 5498 as opposed to the type of account that actually received the deposit. Under VCP, I'd ask to simply transfer the funds into a SEP "account"; which really doesn't do anything from a tax perspective. What it does, however, is confront the IRS with the issue before they confront you. Good Luck!

If done, there should be language in the document to support the activity. In this case, you would be precluded from making the transfer without language in the written plan authorizing it. Good Luck!

They will receive it, but it just will not remain in the plan. You can look at amending to use a current year testing. Good Luck!

ShERPA took the words out of my mouth as well. "IF" the IRS and DOL were concerned about consistency, they would differentiate plan loans from "daily" and "balance forward" plans. Back when these rules were written, there weren't many (if any) daily plans. Under a "daily" valued plan, the concept of adequate security doesn't compute as it is automatically the "BEST" security you can have against lost to the plan. In daily, you actually "sell the other assets" directly from the participant's account in order to fund the loan. In my view, that should earn a rate better than that of the US Treasury; especially in light of recent events Under balance forward, you're "typically" selling pooled assets to fund the loan. If the participant doesn't pay, it could affect other particpants. Good Luck!

I was speaking to the RMD plus the loan offset being "taxable". In such instance, it would behoove the participant to allow the loan offset alone to satisfy the RMD. 20% withholding applies to the offset when cash is received from the distribution. Good Luck!

I would say the 6 months after the 59th birthday. I wouldn't count days. I would use the regulation on determining when a person turns age 70 1/2 has a reference in determining when the 1/2 year occurs; just for consistency.

There are withholding rules that apply when cash is received the distribution. I would, first, let the loan offset serve to satisfy the RMD. Good Luck!

Not familiar with the semantics; but a cute term. Whatever the case is, you should read and familiarize yourself with the document in order to determine exactly how the safe harbor feature is to be administered. That's not being sarcastic, but merely pointing out that there is some flexibility as to whether an amendment will be done each year or not. Based on my understanding of history of the SHNEC, you couldn't amend out during the year unless you terminated the plan (but that has sense changed). With that understanding, I'd imagine the default is that the plan "may be" amended to provide the SHNEC provided such notice is provided prior to the beginning of the year stating it may happen. I wouldn't know without actually reading the document. Good Luck!

I've never seen that one. Wouldn't doubt it as the industry has come a long way in diluting the meaning of "definitely determinable formula" over the past 20 years. I always thought the foundation of a definite determination would be the 'time period' for which the contribution is being calculated. Again, I wouldn't doubt it; but seeing this would be a first for me. Good Luck!

As a rule, you cannot change the conditions for receiving an allocation after those conditions have been met. With that said, each participant is entitled to a 'true-up' match based on Compensation received (and deferrals made) through the current date. You can amend today, to a payroll period match (and calculate a true-up through today) and move forward in the manner in which the employer desires. Good Luck!

It sounds like an eviction to me. Property taxes are automatically a first lien holder and subordinates other liens. I'd treat it as such.

Sure. You would go back as long as necessary; it's VCP. Good Luck!

You are correct. Good Luck!

These are good questions. Presumably, if you were to include such language, you'd have either an IRS opinion letter (if a prototype) or a favorable determination letter. Having such language doesn't preclude you from restating the plan to another document (in order to keep the plan in operation) after the stated event occured. Good Luck!

Just have her take a taxable distribution of the policy from the plan. It'll be taxable at FMV minus accumulated cost basis. Good Luck!

I wouldn't recommend it. Sounds too much like debt financed property. Good Luck!

No, the retention rules do not require "paper"; especially when electronic copies will be more efficient and effective. Good Luck!

Run the test. No test was needed in 2012 since the plan was safe harbor. Now that you've changed (and to the prior year method), you need only to calculate the NHCE percentage for 2012. That should not be too complicated. Good Luck!

Nothing at all. It's frozen only with respect to contributions. Good Luck!

That would be the difference between "a" and "any". I look at the language to mean successive periods until an actual overlap is written into the terms of the document (i.e. switch to plan year). Until that is done, the periods would be successive; not rolling. If it is rolling, then you have 365 distinct computation periods in a single year; each 6 months in length beginning on each day of the year. Good Luck!

Austin, I'm a "5" so I am in the same boat; and have experienced the same frustration. It appears as if the chart should've been revised from [2008, 2009, 2010] to [2011, 2012, 2013]. This would make the filing between 4/1/2014 and 6/30/2014; which makes sense since my expiration date is 9/30/2014.