jpod

This is a tough one, I think, because at least in the IRS' view it was not a "mistake of fact" contribution, but I would research that and hope to find out that I am wrong. It's not tax-deductible, but I think the IRS is pretty firm that the exception permitting a return of nondeductible contributions applies only if the IRS actually disallows the deduction, but I am a bit rusty on that issue and I would research it as well. Also, I would take a deep dive into the latest EPCRS rev. proc. and see if there is a possibility of relief there, either SCP or VCP.

I think it all boils down to the plan's definition of "Beneficiary" combined with the usage of the term "Beneficiary" in the pertinent provisions of the plan. I suspect after considering all that one can only conclude that the Beneficiary whose life is used for purposes of calculating the annuity is the person to whom the benefit must be paid. Assuming that is the answer, if the administrator is willing to make the payments to a third party well fine but if the question is whether the participant has the right to demand that the answer would be "no."

I haven't read all the posts, but cutting to the chase: Isn't this initially a question of what the plan terms allow? How likely is it that under the terms of the plan the benefit is payable to anyone other than the participant and, after the participant's death, the contingent annuitant designated? Probably not likely at all. Case closed.

Technically, the answer to your first question is certainly "yes," but I assume what you are really asking about is whether there would be any 410(b) coverage or other qualification issues/roadblocks to address. Someone needs to determine if the Schedule C trade or business is a member of either a 414(c) group or a 414(m) group with the medical practice partnership (or any other trade or business with employees). If not, there shouldn't be any issues with setting up a separate plan just for the doctor's Schedule C business.

And I did not mean to imply that the 2678 payroll arrangement would cure the employee benefits coverage issue. That is a seriously hot potato.

Bird, look at IRS Form 2678 and its instructions. It may be that an arrangement of they type implemented by using this Form is in effect.

An RMD is required for 2018, but as an exception to the normal rule it can be deferred until as late as April 1, 2019. The RMD for 2019 must be received in 2019.

If it is just "phantom" stock, it doesn't sound like a debt-for-equity exchange to me; rather, all they would be doing is changing the terms for debt repayment. I don't see any tax consequences from this action unless there are cancellation of indebtedness issues, which doesn't seem likely. Certainly no "constructive receipt" or "economic benefit" issues just because the interest in the phantom stock is "vested." But I agree that (if the dollars are large enough) both parties should seek tax advice.

If there is a legally-appointed personal representative for the estate that individual should make the inquiry. I still favor doing the 5500-search first, but whether or not that is done the personal representative has a bit more clout in asking for a Summary Plan Description and other information concerning the decedent's benefits than the decedent's nephew has (unless the nephew happens to be the personal representative).

If you have the PRECISE name of the company or the PRECISE name of the pension plan (preferably both), you can search the linked page from the U.S. Department of Labor website and find the most recent Form 5500 filed for the pension plan. If the pension plan has enough participants the 5500 will include an auditor's report that contains a narrative that describes the plan in some detail. https://www.efast.dol.gov/portal/app/disseminate?execution=e1s1

I thought this annual disclosure was required only if SPECIFIC assets are allocated to employees' accounts, but not if the investments are truly pooled and no employee has any rights to any specific assets. I could be wrong.

But in any event that would be something for the plan administrator to interpret, not the retiree.

Spouse has no rights to anything under the law. Plan may say something different, although unlikely. The plan may permit the retiree to designate a different beneficiary for the balance of the 10 years' payments due at death, but one would need to inquire. There is nothing in the law that would prohibit the plan from permitting such a change. You're assuming the plan is silent, but it's probably not really silent. I would look at the definition of beneficiary and the language relating to the designation of a beneficiary and it will probably lead to a favored interpretation one way or the other.

Just to be clear, no need to spend money on an ERISA attorney on the fundamental issue: You MUST contribute cash to satisfy MF.

A cash balance plan being a "pension" plan, with a minimum funding contribution obligation under the IRC, it is clearly a PT to the extent that property is contributed to satisfy the minimum funding obligation. I think there may be authority to confirm, or at least suggest, that it is not PT if the property contributed is above and beyond the cash contributed to satisfy MF, but that should be researched first.

Assuming it was an eligible rollover distribution (e.g., not a hardship distribution), yes, it can be rolled within 60 days of the date of distribution. The P will have to find another $40,000 somewhere else if he/she wishes to avoid tax on that amount.

409A is not an issue here.

Wait a minute: First, she wanted to receive her MRD, but in quarterly installments. Now she wants to give it all to charity. Something doesn't compute here.

Agree with QDRO, although on the ERISA "top hat" question I will say that whether a top hat notice, and a limitation to a top hat group, are required will be dependent upon whether the plan or arrangement meets the definition of "pension plan" under Section 3(2) of ERISA. Your average securities lawyer, no matter how excellent, is not likely to be trained in such matters.

I think you can do it, if (a) it is consistent with the terms of the plan, and (b) you comply with 401(a)(14) and 401(a)(9) for those individuals who have not established direct deposit.

I should have said "may" have a much bigger plan issue . . . . A well-drafted plan would exclude anyone from eligibility who was treated as a non-employee for tax purposes regardless of how the should have been treated for tax purposes.

If he was really a common law employee for tax purposes all this time, your client has a much bigger plan issue then simply whether he enters the plan now or a year from now.

The regulatory exemption from ERISA Title I - and the associated Title I filing requirements - applies only if the two individuals are partners in a partnership. Notwithstanding the PPA provision unless there has been sub-regulatory guidance to the contrary from the DOL which I don't recall the Title I exemption is not available for a plan covering only shareholders of an S corp or only members of an LLC.

I will admit to not having studied the new rules enough to help you, but this seems to be something that the IRS probably wouldn't wish to allow via SCP, so I would interpret the guidance with that as my premise.

Yes, subject to the limitation on filing the EZ if the partnership files a minimum number of information returns each year.