LIBERTYKID

I agree with Larry on this one. No basis to say you have a loan.

I would think the correct response is for the person to be told to speak to an employment law attorney. The attorney can consult with his/her benefits counsel if needed but I think the questioner has come to the wrong church.

Unrelated person 1 owns 70 percent of company 1. Dad owns 9 percent, and has three minor children. It is my understanding that for controlled group purposes, you first test unrelated person 1 and dad with their ownership in a second company, then unrelated person with child 1, separately with child 2 and separately with child 3. In other words, all individuals are not tested at the same time and you never have at the same time ownership of more than 100 percent when you do a test. Derrin Watson does say this in an old 2001 Q and A, but I can't seem to find any authority. Can anyone find a cite to formal or informal IRS guidance that so states? Is this also true with a grantor trust, where the grantor is always attributed the trust shares, and for example two beneficiaries have an actuarial interest in the trust shares?

Agree with Luke. I could never find anyway out of this fact situation which comes up from time to time.

I have a similar question. Can a cash incentive be provided outside of the plan to encourage cash out distributions? I hope this reply bumps this question up to the top.

Check the trust agreement, if separate, or the trust provisions of the combined plan / trust. The provisions should allow for the purchase of annuities. If not, perhaps an amendment is in order; but I agree with you it is not a plan provisions per se.

Think about it. There are no statue of limitations on either late amendments or murder. Though I am sure you are a Saint.

Plan permits a participant to make salary deferral contributions immediately after hire but may only receive an employer discretionary contribution after a year of service based on compensated earned after being eligible for the employer discretionary contribution. Assume a person is hired on April 1, 2014, and is first eligible to receive the discretionary contribution on and after April 1, 2015. In testing the compensation used for the employer discretionary contribution for discrimination under 414(s), do I use the person's total compensation from January 1, 2015 or April 1, 2015? I understand that pre-participation compensation can be excluded, but can I treat eligibility for the discretionary contribution separately, or does the fact that the employee was eligible to make salary deferrals for all of 2015 prevent me from doing so?

Item (e) of form 6088 asks for compensation information. But the plan benefit formula is just service multipled by certain dollar amounts. Can I put N/A in that column or will the IRS insist that it be completed?

Employer maintains both an ESOP and 401(k) plan. Employer wants to merge the ESOP into the 401(k) plan. The 401(k) plan is a prototype. It is my understanding the certain ESOP provisions must be preserved in the merger, such as the right to receive employer stock in kind, the right to diversify, and perhaps put rights. The employer's stock is publicly traded and the 401(k) plan in operation permits distributions in the form of employer stock and the right to diversify frequently. Does the 401(k) plan has to be amended to preserve such rights and does this fact turn the 401(k) profotype into an indivdually designed plan.

Code Section 409(e)(5) provides that the pass-through voting on the specified matters in Code Section 409(e)(3) for non-registration type securities will be met if the plan permits each participant one vote with regard to such issue. I am concentration on the language "will be met." Is "one-person, one- vote" an absolute requirement, or can the plan permit voting based on total shares held by each participant? Is there any authority for an alternative method of voting?

Section 3121 defines "qualified church-controlled organization" as meaning any "church-controlled tax-exempt organization" described in Section 501©(3)..... So the word "controlled" is in both the definition and the term to be defined. What constitutes control? Is "church-controlled tax-exempt organization" defined anywhere?

I am not sure if that makes a difference. subparagraph (a) Generally, whether a series of payments is a series of substantially equal periodic payments over a specified period is determined at the time payments begin ... without regard to contingencies or modifications that have not yet occurred. And then there is the statement is subparagraph © However, a new determination is not made merely becuse, upon the death of the employees, the spouse or foremer spouse of the employee becomes the distributee.

Last sentence of subparagraph © "For example, subtantially equal periodic payments made unde a life annuity with a five-year term certain would not be an eligible rollover distribuiton even when paid after the death of the employee with three years remaining under the term certain."

I answered my own question. Treasury reg. 1.402©-2 Q&A -5 says "no."