jpod

You need to have a plan document and a trust agreement signed and dated before the end of 2014. No need to deposit any money before the end of the year.

Yes, the Delta case stands for the proposition that if something is not prohibited by Federal ADEA then any state law to the contrary is preempted by ERISA.

Because it found, factually, that putting a few (three, I think) of the funds on the platform was imprudent where there were share classes with lower x ratios available.

because you suggested that exclusion of employees younger than age 25 would violate age discrimination laws

No, they would be preempted by ERISA (assuming the HRA is an ERISA plan, which it would be unless it is a governmental plaln or a church plan). The Supreme Court resolved this issue maybe 30 years ago.

Unless there is an IRS statement to the contrary which i haven't seen, I am not so sure that the IRS would say this is ok under Section 410(a), because the status is by definition based on service time to a certain extent. R. Butler, can you play it safe and accomplish the same goal by having a one-year of service requirement with semi-annual entry dates for H-2B workers?

I said "could be" because beyond knowing that 4958 exists everything else i know about it could fit in a thimble. This issue needs to be punted to the organization's CFO/Board.

There is no Federal law ADEA violation if there is discrimination against younger employees, and any State ADEA rule to the contrary would be pre-empted by ERISA.

This could be a big stretch, but the excise tax exposure under IRC Section 4958 for excess benefit transactions may come into play.

I would say that if the client wants it to be taxable this year he has a very defensible position that it is. Whether the 1099-R will say otherwise is a different matter. Sure the client will have a headache if he gets a 2015 1099-R rather than a 2014, but the form 1099-R filer can't control when it's taxable.

There is nothing to fix; no need to amend (although you will need something in the nature of an SMM to reflect the plan sponsor name change). I would advise client to wait until you actually amend for something substantive, or until you do a complete restatement. If client insists then it's the boss so ok to amend (even the most risk-adverse shouldn't fear IRS disqualification under the safe harbor "no amendment" rule because of this non-substantive amendment).

Depending upon the net cash flow from the rental and other metrics, it may be wise(wiser) to take a mortgage on the rental and use the proceeds to cover your down payment on your new home.

Respecting the plan year concept, I have to think it must be definitely determinable by the end of the plan year. Again, i haven't researched it, but i wouldn't be surprised if there isn't some old IRS guidance out there that prevents you from imposing post-plan year conditions on a plan year allocation.

I can't put my finger on anything specific, but there may be a problem with it for the last quarter, i.e., imposing a post-plan year condition on a plan year contribution. Aside from that, is there a reason to believe that having that 15 day requirement will accomplish anything more than a last-day-of-quarter requirement?

yes.

Agreed that the explanation could be that it was only $500 per week being late 9 days, i.e., a very small plan. I was wondering whether it could be a case where the days weren't counted until the 15th day of the following month has passed (which many people still assume is the first day you need to start counting).

Just curious how the excise tax could be so negligible yet it seems to be a foregone conclusion that the deposits were "late." What are the timeframes involved? My antenna tell me that either there is no need to treat the deposits as "late" or someone is under-counting the number of days they were late.

A same-sex spouse is a spouse for 401(a)(9) purposes. However, the status of a beneficiary being a spouse has the effect of stretching out MRDs rather than accelerating them, so I think if you wanted to you could treat a same sex spouse as a non-spouse for purpose of implementing the Plan's MRD requirements.

401(k) Plan provides for elective deferrals and employer match only. No profit sharing or other non-elective employer contributions are permitted. Vesting schedule is 20% after 1 YOS, 40% after 2, etc., with 100% after 5. As written the vesting schedule applies to all employer contributions, but as noted the document does not provide for anything other than a match. Employer wants to amend the plan to provide for a non-discretionary, non-elective contribution starting 2015. However, it wants to adopt a 2/6 vesting schedule for that money source, while preserving the 1/5 vesting schedule for the match. Will employees with at least 3 YOS have to be grandfathered into the more favorable 1/5 vesting schedule for the non-elective contribution due to IRC Section 411(a)(10)?

Of course the plan document controls, but if the question is more abstract as QDRO states fwiw I have this vague recollection that in the old days of Thrift Plans you could write a check to the Plan at the end of the year to make your voluntary (i.e., after-tax) contributions. There are some old fossils in the form of IRS revenue rulings, most if not all pre-ERISA, that could provide an answer.

Isn't it likely that the SPD says that if there is a conflict between the Plan and the SPD the Plan controls?

The employer needs to set up a plan for those employees to satisfy its obligation to under the CBA. Whether it can be the existing plan with some tweaks is not up for you to decide. Employer's labor/ERISA counsel needs to provide direction.

I was merely pointing out that 2004-55 provies a blueprint for how this can be done, but obviously you must be able to fit within the blueprint. Also, i don't know that the ACA prohibitions apply to disability insurance.

If my status as an active employee and my work obligations to my employer end at 5pm on 12/31, I have entered into retirement on 12/31. Stated differently, unless that status and those obligations end at the instant the ball drops on Times Square, I would view myself as having retired in the current year.

I've seen it done. As long as the drafting is handled VERY carefully, it can work, but i can't think of a good reason to do it.