ETA Consulting LLC

Under the current rules, it is possible for this to happen; as ERISA status applies to the individual contracts as opposed to the plan. Hence, if you have a set of contracts that receive deferrals only with 'limited employer involvement' then those contracts would not be subject to ERISA. At the same time, you can have a group of contracts that receive the deposits of the employer contributions; and subject to ERISA. This does appear to create an anomaly when it comes to the participant counts on the Forms 5500. You may have only 1/2 of your employees receiving employer contributions, and therfore contracts that are subject to ERISA. However, in your actual participant count, you're counting everyone of the actual plan who is eligible to defer. This, still, does not make those deferral only contracts subject to ERISA. All this is becoming an issue through the new rules requiring written plans and requiring asset reporting on the Form 5500. "Currently" there is still a differentiation between "contracts" that are subject to ERISA and those that are not. If no contract is subject to ERISA, then there is no Form 5500 filing. However, if at least one contract is subject to ERISA, then the entire host of inconsistencies begin; because ERISA status applies to the contract and not the plan. Obviously, these points are arguable; but you can clearly see the arguments formulating for and against any point of view. Good Luck!

Of course. The plan must allow any distribution that is eligible for rollover to be done directly. The plan must also allow for direct rollovers to Roth IRAs. Good Luck!

In that case, Mike is spot on. You'd use the amount distributed from that particular contract to offset the entire amount that must be distributed from all 4 IRAs. Good Luck!

Mike, I spoke loosely on this issue, because that applies only in the event the contract is not actually annuitized. You may take a stream of payments from an annuity without annuitizing the contract. Without know the particular details, I assumed the contract is actually annuitized (which may be over any period not extending beyond the taxpayer's life expectancy). So, I agree with your point, but there is a contingency based on whether the contract is actually annuitized or simply withdrawing funds. You are right that annuitizing is generally life (with a 5 year or other period certainty). My assumption, which "may or may not have been reasonable given the limited detail", was that the contract was merely annuitized and removed from the combined calculation. My understanding is that: As a rule, all IRA's "may be" combined for RMD purposes. This makes it a viable alternative to merely remove the contract in question and calculate on the other 3. Good Luck!

I'll say this, when you study from a previous module, there won't be a drastic enough change in the next module. However, if recent legislation has passed (i.e. in plan conversion to Roth 401(k) without a distributable event), then you may be expected to demonstrate an understanding of this. Unlike any other test, the CPC is designed to show how you think. I am not familiar with the recent changes in the design, but I walked away from my test unsure if I answered the questions they were asking. I did very well, but the test was designed to argumentive to ascertain whether you can compentently articulate complex issues. In looking at some of your previous posts, I don't think you'd have a problem. I know it sounds like a high school coach from a bad movie, but keep the emphasis on being familiar enough to speak as if you're informed on a wider array of topics; and you'd do well. This, of course, would entail going a little beyond the modules (but the modules are definately a good start). Good Luck!

If the payment was included on the W-2, then it should be included; as it was (apparently) paid on the Employer's behalf. If I owe you $15 and get sick, and have my insurance company to cut you a check for $15; regardless of who wrote the check, it was me that repaid you that $15. For lack of a better analogy, this appears to be reflective of your situation since the amount was actually included on the participant's W-2. Good Luck!

No. It's the extended tax filing deadline. There are no exceptions for amended returns. Good Luck!

Assuming that when you settle for the five year payout, the contract is (effectively) annuitized, then you simply disregard it and continue forward by calculating on the remaining three. Now, the first annuitized payment (alone) should be enough to satisfy the RMD for that particular contract for the first year. Good Luck!

They are not subject to the anti-cutback rules of IRC Section 401(a)(13) nor Title I of ERISA. Good Luck!

Sure, if it is otherwise eligible for rollover. If the distribution is part of a series of distributions over the participant's life (and other otherwise eligible for rollover) then it may not be converted to a Roth IRA. In other words, merely being post-tax doesn't prevent a rollover to a Roth IRA. Good Luck!

Taxable to whom? This would merely be revenue to the recipient of the funds (the organization that provided the services to the plan). It would be included on the Form 5500 as an expense paid from the trust. Good Luck!

You may have to have the amended language included in the entire order, and resubmit. I totally understand what you're dealing with on the rudeness and abruptness of the administrator; it is a reflection of incompetence on the administrator's part. You asked for assistance in an area in which they are totally inept. Instead of taking ownership of the issue and providing you a detailed explanation of the process and your options, they get combative and short in order to get you off the phone; as they have convinced themselves (through their own incompentence) that you are the issue. I've seen this on countless occassions. Obviously, there are two sides to every story and we know only yours. I have witnessed (first hand) many similiar issues which is why I believe this issue in with the paln administrator. I hope it works out for you. For starters, I'd have the courts rewrite the entire order to include the amended language. It may be advisable for the court to reference the previous order and this this order is intended to supercede the older order in its entirety. Other experts may have more valueable insight as this would merely be my approach. Good Luck!

I would speak with the NJ plan administrator and explain to them what you are trying to do and have them provide your options. It's interesting that: 1) QDROs are a common exception to the anti-assignment rules in Section 401(a)(13) of the Internal Revenue Code. Hence, the QDRO is what allows the participant's benefit to be separated and assigned to a spouse during a divorce without disqualifying the plan. However, 2) the anti-assignment rules of Section 401(a)(13) do not apply to governmental plans or church plans. Therefore, a "legitimate QDRO" isn't necessarily needed for the assignment. I would use this as a position to accept the amendment without redoing the entire QDRO, but that's just me. It would be hard to determine what the actual plan administrator would require in order to get you where you need to be. The best initial approach is to work directly with them. I think that at one time or another, any particular pension professional had to argue another individual out of their stance by quoting different rules. I also think that this would not, typically, be the first approach when the issue may be resolved by merely accomodating them when it doesn't require to much work. Good Luck!

How can they not be a controlled group? You are correct! Good Luck!

No way. You may not defer from Compensation you have already received. When you establish a plan in late December (and you are an S Corp), you should've bonused yourself an additional $17,000 (plus applicable FICA) and deferred the $17,000. Good Luck!

This used to be required, but the rule changed some time ago. This goes back to the answer to every requestion is "what does the plan document state?" Good Luck!

If the employee has severed employment on 12/31/12, then the RBD would be 4/1/2013. Receiving a trailing paycheck doesn't extend employment. It would probably be another issue if the employer were to report the date of termination as 1/2/2013. I think the employment records of the employer would be a more appropriate basis for making this determination. Good Luck!

No. I am saying that 401(a)(4) testing doesn't automatically mean cross-testing. In this instance, you will have two distinct allocation rates. If each rate passes the coverage ratio test on its own, then there is not problem. You don't have to cross-test the plan merely because there is a different allocation rate being given to different groups of employees. Good Luck!

The term "cross-testing" merely means that you are converting the allocation to an equivalent benefit rate and performing the ratio percentage test on this figure (loosely stated). You do not have to cross test merely because you have two separate companies in a plan where each company provides their own allocation rate to their own employees. If the HCEs and NHCEs are properly disbursed across each company whether the coverage ratio percentages of each company will be at or above 70%, then you are fine. If one fails, then you'd have to look at other methods of testing. Even if you were to perform the average benefits test, you may do this on "allocation rates" instead of "equivalent benefit accrual rates (aka cross-testing). In other words, don't jump immediately into cross testing. Just perform the coverage ratio test for each allocation rate before you look at other testing methods. Good Luck!

Thank you for adding the "Like" button feature. It's going to work well once the daily quota limit is removed

Yes. When you pay someone on a 1099 as an independent contractor, you are "saying" that you've made a determination that they are "not your employee". Whether or not that determination is correct goes beyond merely paying them on a 1099 instead of a W-2, but a bona fide contractor is not your common law employee. Good Luck!

Correct. Seldom done, but "may" be written to delay (or limit) distribution. Good Luck!

Sure you can. You should be sure to recordkeep the transactions appropriately. Good Luck!

You should terminate the distribute the 401(k) prior to dissolving the company. When distributing the 401(k), you can roll 100% of it over to a traditional IRA in order to avoid taxes on the distribution. You'd just dissolve the 401(k). You should have only 1 401(k) plan. Upon changing to the new product at TD, you may have created a new plan with the structure of your document. It's a procedure that should've been followed, but difficult to determine exactly what was done. Good Luck!

When you're using the Average Benefits Test to test all plans of the employer, then you'd use the most liberal age/service/entry requirements for the test. You would still get to separate test less than age 21 & 1, but you may end up including a plan with more than 1 year of service for plan entry. Permissive aggregation is different. You're only testing two plans (i.e. based on 21 & 1). Good Luck!