jpod

I assume from your OP Austin that there is a block to check to say "Trust." A Rabbi Trust is a perfectly good trust, just one with special tax attributes. What is your concern about checking the "Trust" box?

I don't have knowledge of all the case law, but your analysis makes perfect sense to me (i.e., the liability sits with the employer and members of ITS controlled group). However, if you reversed the facts and y was a subsidiary of x, then the plan could end up owning y! That, of course, flows from x's liability as a GP and not because of ERISA.

I happen to think the preference for electronic filing is curious, but nevertheless why is there even a question here? You can't knowingly complete the SF inaccurately, so you have to check the box! Whether you should amend prior SFs is a separate issue (I wouldn't).

The stated facts suggest that there is a more fundamental issue here, which is whether there was a bona fide termination of employment in the first place. My guess is there was not. I don't know what "on call" means in this situation, but it usually implies an employment relationship with variable hours at the direction of the employer.

Why don't you file the 5500-EZ if the plan covers only partners in a partnership?

What is the context of the provision that specifically addresses deferrals out of bonuses? It doesn't make sense, unless it was simply a drafting error (e.g., copying an old document and using it to create a new plan whose terms didn't line up perfectly).

A non-certified copy of the death certificant coupled with a copy of a newspaper obituary, either hard or one printed out on-line, should be sufficient.

Is it a big deal to keep the account in the plan, perhaps invested in the appropriate QDIA, until termination of the plan or the participant or his beneficiary appears? Is risk of disqualification due to non-compliance with the MRD requirement a serious risk if you can't find the participant? If you do a prudent and thorough search for the participant once, do you have to ever do it again absent new information brought to your attention?

If the QDRO has the often-used boilerplate language to the effect that "nothing in this Order shall require the Plan to pay . . . [more than the Participant's vested interest in his/her account] . . . ," I believe that should address MPreston's concerns.

Getting rid of the reversion excise tax would be a good start. Allowing some access to surplus funds without having to terminate to fund employee health coverage costs would be another. I am sure that there are plenty of smart policy wonks in DC who could come up with ideas.

Naive, perhaps, but maybe the government should figure out something to do to actually encourage large employers (rather than just doctors and lawyers) to go back into the DB business, rather than driving them away in droves.

I get it. Is your question whether it is a one-participant plan for 5500 purposes? If so, it seems to me that if a non-spouse employee was eligible to participate at any time since the effective date then it is not a one-participant plan for those purposes for 2015. 2016 would be a different story.

There really is no such thing as a solo 401(k), so please explain what you are trying to accomplish or avoid.

This is not responsive to Austin's last Q but I am still surprised that a non-profit compensates its Board members.

I am taking a guess but is it because it wasn't until EGTRRA (eff. 2002) that you could double up on both 401k and 457(b)?

There is no self-employment tax paid on vested deferred comp (as I said the 3121 rules applicable to FICA/Medicare do not apply to self-employment taxes). The SE tax is paid when the deferred comp is paid.

Can't help you Austin without looking at the 1099 instructions, but my guess is that 457(b) contributions wouldn't appear anywhere on the 1099-MISC, whether they are elective deferrals out of current Board fees OR additional amounts allocated by the organization. There is no 409A reporting involved because 457(b)s are exempt from 409A. And there is no payment of self-employment taxes up front or reporting of self-employment income because the 3121 rules don't apply to self-employment taxes. Distributions, however, would be reported on the 1099.

My experience is the same as MBOZEK's, except for larger DB plans.

Maybe this question is naive, but are non-profit Board members typically compensated? Anyway, if they are compensated then perhaps they would prefer going their own way with a ("Keogh") 401(a) plan or a SEP or SIMPLE, rather than getting wound up with some organization's plan.

What is the legal authority under IRC Section 403(b) for investments in something other than mutual funds or annuity contracts issued by insurance companies?

As usual Mike Preston is correct. I suppose it's possible that the beneficiary is the decedant's sister and her niece is the decedant's daughter, in which case maybe she would be the default beneficiary, either directly or as sole heir to the estate. Not likely in my estimation, but certainly possible.

All I am suggesting for you to think about is to wait for a second request. If a second request never comes, will you feel guilty in any way? As a matter of fact you never received any request. It wasn't really appropriate for the employer to contact your IRA custodian, at least without contacting you simultaneously, and evidently that didn't happen.

Take this for what you feel it's worth, which may be nothing. It is quite possible that the employer contacted your IRA custodian because it is attempting to comply with the requirements for correction of an operational error vis a vis the ESOP. It is possible that the employer is just going through the motions and has no expectation that you will agree to return any money, and is prepared to make the ESOP whole by funding the amount itself. You may wish to wait for a second request from the employer before you respond or do anything, which second request may never come. Also, there should be no chance that your IRA custodian would ever send any money to the employer, to the ESOP, or to anyone else absent your written direction.

The only effect of a disclaimer would be that the default beneficiary as determined by the plan document would become the beneficiary, so I doubt this would accomplish anything.

And whether or not the plan would allow it won't work for tax purposes.