NJ Mike

We have been using FT Williams for years for documents and Form 5500s. We are very happy both with their products and their service. Mike

Not sure if this discussion will help you.

To Answer: 1 ) I used pay.gov last cycle so don't know if it will be faster. Got my renewal notice a couple of days before 4/1. 2) Yes you have to wait. From the Join Board website: If you meet both deadlines, you may begin using the "20-" prefix with your enrollment number beginning April 1, 2020, regardless of whether you received an official renewal notice from the Joint Board. Mike

Larry - Look at Private Letter Ruling 200123070 which seems to say there is no RMD. Here is a summary. I can provide fill ruling if needed. Taxpayer attained age 70 1/2 in 1997. During Month 3, 1999, Taxpayer A received an in-service distribution in the amount of Amount 1 from Plan X which distribution was directly transferred to IRA Y, a pre-existing individual retirement arrangement. The amounts transferred (rolled over) from Plan X to IRA Y were accounted for separately from amounts in IRA Y prior to said transfer. In Month 6, 2000, Taxpayer A married Taxpayer B, whose date of birth was during Year 9. On or about Date 4, 2000, Taxpayer A named Taxpayer B as the beneficiary of his IRA Y. On or about Date 5, 2000, assets of IRA Y, in the amount of Amount 2, were transferred, by means of a trustee to trustee transfer, to IRA Z. The amounts that were transferred from IRA Y to IRA Z consisted solely of the amounts originally transferred from Plan X, with adjustment for gains and losses. Assets that were present in IRA Y prior to the Month 3, 1999 transfer (rollover), referenced above, were not transferred to IRA Z. Taxpayer A elected to receive required dis­tributions from his IRA Z over his and Taxpayer B’s joint life expectancy. By means of a form dated Date 8, 2000, Taxpayer A elected not to recalculate either his or Taxpayer B’s life expectancy. Based on the above facts and representa­tions, you, through your authorized representa­tive, request the following letter rulings: 1. That as of Month 3, 1999, Taxpayer A had not attained his Code section 401(a)(9) required beginning date with respect to his inter­est in Plan X; 2. that Taxpayer A’s required Code section 401(a)(9) required beginning date with respect to his interest in Plan X is April 1 of the calendar year following the later of (1) the calendar year in which he attains age 70 1/2 or (2) the calendar year in which he separates from the service of Company C; 3. that Amount 1, which was directly transferred (rolled over) from Taxpayer A’s Plan X account to his IRA Y during Month 3, 1999, was not subject to the Code section 401(a)(9) required distribution rules, made applicable to IRAs under Code section 408(a)(6), during calendar year 1999; Based on the above, the Service concludes -with respect to your first three ruling requests as follows: 1. That as of Month 3, 1999, ‘Taxpayer A had not attained his Code section, 401(a)(9) required beginning date with respect to his inter­est in Plan X; 2. that Taxpayer A’s required Code section 40l(a)(9) required beginning date with respect to his interest in Plan X is April 1 of the calendar year following the later of (1) the calendar year in which he attains age 70 1/2 or (2) the calendar year in which he retires from Company C; and 3. that Amount 1, which was directly transferred (rolled over) from Taxpayer A’s Plan X account to his IRA Y during Month 3, 1999, was not subject to the Code section 401(a)(9) required distribution rules, made applicable to IRAs under Code section 408(a)(6), during calendar year 1999.

Luke - I think you hit the nail on the head. They (now only one person) are confused by the reason you gave. Thanks for your response. Mike

I have a plan in which a participant (Owner) passed away 10 years ago. She was receiving RMDs from the plan. The beneficiaries are her son (employee) and daughter (non-employee). They each have been receiving RMDs every year from the plan. The distributions started by 12/31 of the year following the mom's death. Daughter now wants to transfer her portion of the remaining account balance to an inherited IRA. Is this possible? I looked over Notice 2007-7 as well as other regulations and my thought is yes but getting disagreement in the office here. RMDs would have to continue under the IRA as they now do in the plan. Thanks for the help. Mike

Our plans, for example, would define it as the fifth anniversary of participation. So like David said, the change in the plan year has no effect. Mike

........put in Automatic Enrollment. Mike

If it is a Money Purchase Plan, it is subject to minimum funding requirements and the contribution is due September 15th. Mike

Try going into the Legal Stream website and type in the PLR # in the search box. http://www.legalbitstream.com/irs_materials.asp?pl=i9 If that does not work I've attached a copy of the PLR. Mike PLR 9429026.docx

My understanding was that the annuity exception applies to annuities over a life expectancy or for at least 10 years. If the period is less than 10 years, each payment is an eligible rollover distribution. See Letter Ruling 9429026. As far as payments after age 70 1/2, if they are RMDs they are not eligible rollover distributions. Mike http://www.legalbitstream.com/scripts/isyswebext.dll?op=get&uri=/isysquery/irl5f20/1/doc

See the following Mike

Here is a brief summary from a session at the 2016 EA Meeting. Mike Session 505 2016 EA.pdf

See the following: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p6389.pdf On page 4 - Line l. In general, for vesting purposes, count all years of service with the employer who maintains the plan. However, there are several exceptions to this rule. Years of service before an employee reaches age 18 may be excluded. If a plan uses a vesting computation period, count the vesting computation period in which an employee becomes 18 as a year of service. If a plan uses elapsed time, count the period after the employee became 18 when figuring the employee’s period of service. Except for top-heavy years, a contributory plan that uses a vesting computation period may exclude a year. Mike

Correct when both plans have Uniform Retirement Ages. However, if one or more of the plans has a NRA that is not uniform, it is age 65. In this case, I don't think the NRA in the DB plan is uniform, so it is age 65.