Belgarath

Yeah, my fingers weren't connected to my brain when I was typing. Not quite sure why I hyphenated "bipartisan" other than my normal lack of keyboard skills. It isn't easy typing with three thumbs, especially when all three are on one hand. I maintain it is the fault of the keyboard for having the hyphen right above the "p" where it is bound to cause trouble for people like me. Or I could blame it on the umpire, which is always a good excuse as well.

Ditto. But now I've got to change all my form letters to 2015 before I forget. My New Year's resolution is to remember that it is 2015 BEFORE I get to July 1st this year...

Cute! Probably the most amusing thing there was the thought of a bi-partisan Congress... As Lewis Black said, "The only thing worse than a Democrat or a Republican is when those p***** get together!"

Interesting. I suppose one could make an argument for either interpretation (as of the date election is signed, or as of the date it is "processed.") As opposed to a normal distribution where a check is actually issued, I'd lean toward the date the election is signed, rather than the "processing" date.

Hi Austin - just re-asking my question: did Corbel provide any analysis/citations, or was it just more of, "Yeah, we think what you have proposed is ok" ???

Hey Austin - did Corbel provide any analysis/citations, or was it just more of, "Yeah, we think what you have proposed is ok" ??? Thanks, and a Happy Holiday Season to everyone!!

Austin - is the Corbel doc you are going to use a VS in AA format, or IDP? Just curious, as I have to say the concept makes me a bit squeamish. I wonder what the IRS would say if you filed for a DL? Did Corbel provide any citation to support this being allowable?

FWIW, my experience is that the IRS has actually been very reasonable about waiving the penalty tax, but you sure hate to have to count on that. The situations I've seen have been "regular" RMD's not under the 5-year rule, so I don't know if they are similarly receptive in those 5-year situations. Good luck! P.S. - I'd love to know the ultimate resolution on this, when it ever is resolved. Thanks.

Does seem pretty harsh, doesn't it? I don't think you are missing anything. However, I do wonder about the plan sponsor being essentially blameless on this. May very well be true, but you can bet any plan beneficiary facing that kind of an excise tax, if the IRS refuses to waive, will be looking to see who they can sue, and for what reason...

Yes - I can't give you the appropriate reference off the top of my head, but you do not need a PTIN top become an ERPA.

It seems like under 1.410(b)-5(iii), you are allowed to use any of the alternative methods under 1.401(a)(4)-12. And under 1.401(a)(4)-12, definition of Plan Year compensation, (4), it appears that you can use the period during which the employee is a participant in the plan - "plan" for this purpose being the Profit Sharing portion of the plan. Given that, it would also seem reasonable to only consider deferrals from date of participation in the profit sharing portion. Does this make any sense at all?

I've managed to confuse myself here on something I shouldn't be confused about. Say you have a 401(k), immediate entry for deferrals, and semi-annual entry for PS contributions - new comp with everyone in their own group. Plan excludes compensation prior to the time you become a participant in the particular component of the plan. So, when you are doing your average benefits percentage test, and you are calculating the benefit percentages, do you calculate using compensation only from July 1 if that is when the participant entered the plan for contributions other than deferrals? Clearly you can do this purely for Gateway, but I'm getting confused about the rest. And even though deferrals are added back in, for this purpose, seems you would not add back in deferrals prior to July 1? This will probably all be clear tomorrow morning after I've had a chance to step back for a bit...

Hmmm - I don't know the reference offhand that says that employee voluntary contributions can be made by means other than salary deferral, but they clearly can. Consider, for example, that employee contributions can be made to plans OTHER THAN 401(k) arrangements - money purchase, straight PS, DB, etc. Beyond that, then as mentioned earlier, I think the document provisions must be considered. If the document doesn't specify a required method, then I'd feel very comfortable with the plan accepting a contribution made by means other than through payroll.

I can't quite make up my mind if you are for real, or one of those "trolls" who merely try to stir the pot to get people worked up. At any rate, one does have to wonder - since you seem to know so much about it, how simple it is, the "process" - etc., etc., why don't you just do it yourself? IRS LRM language is available on their website. Draft your own document, file your own forms when necessary, calculate your own plan costs, and so on and on. I'm not an actuary, although I have a bucketful of other designations, and I will tell you flat out that an EA's job is extremely difficult, ever-changing, and their time is indeed worth a lot more than mine. I don't begrudge that. I could have chosen to be an EA, and chose not to because it is too darned much work (for my lifestyle) to obtain and maintain EA standards and credentials. However, since this is a free market economy, I wish you good luck in finding someone who does it RIGHT for a much lower price. You never know - there might be someone hungry enough - sometimes you get lucky. And all levity aside - just be careful - the financial consequences of incorrect plan administration can be severe.

I see no problem with it. With the usual caveats about CG/ASG garbage.

Unquestionably, this is cutting edge humor.

I have a question related to this subject. Suppose you have a non-profit, who uses a salary-deferral only adoption agreement, and specifically elects to not have ERISA apply. The DOL "safe harbor" is rather unforgiving, in terms of any employer discretion. So, the employer can't make QDRO determinations, or determine eligibility for distributions, withdrawals, etc... What I'm wondering is this: it is all fine and wonderful for the employer to say, "I'm not going to make these determinations. That will be up to the vendor." In real life, how many vendors actually do this? Won't most vendors send a form to the employer, saying "you need to authorize this distribution/QDRO/whatever." If both the employer and the vendor refuse to authorize the distribution, now the participant is stuck. If the employer relents, and authorizes it, then the ERISA exemption is blown. How do see this Gordian knot handled in real life?

Many documents provide that there would be a "regular" allocation, but NOT a top heavy - even if the TH would be larger than the regular allocation. Although that seems odd, truth is stranger than fiction...

I will leave it to the lawyers here to provide you a definitive answer, but I don't think FOIA applies to this situation. I can certainly understand that you don't want to broach this subject with management.

Thanks.

Has anyone read/used this book? Is it worth buying - I guess what I mean by that is does it address sort of real life situations, with good examples, or is it just statutes,regulations, and theory?

Is it ok for participants to take a cash option from a Cafeteria Plan that is taxed as regular income, and use that money to go to the Exchange and purchase health insurance on their own? I'm thinking it is ok, but I'm having a hard time "proving" it to myself. All the FAQ's/guidance is rather confusing. It seems to me that an insurance purchased on the Exchange isn't an "individual health insurance policy" for purposes of the guidance?

I believe that under either the "party in interest" or "disqualified person" definitions, it is spouses, lineal ascendants and descendants. So in and of itself, I don't see a PT here strictly on the basis of being a sibling.

I believe that as a general rule, you can't file in such a situation any longer. (Personally, I wouldn't anyway, even if you could!) If you modify it, then you can submit on a 5307 or 5300, depending upon the modifications. You might want to take a look at Revenue Procedure 2012-6, and subsequent updates.

I am probably overthinking this. Looking for the simplest way to handle things, consistent with what a client WANTS to do. Corporation A has a 401(k) plan - safe harbor. Corporation B will be newly formed, let's say on December 1. Corporations C-F are a controlled group. They currently have a SEP for 2014. Corporation B, when formed, will be part of the controlled group with C-F - same owners. Now, here's where the fun starts. Corporation B will be purchasing corporation A effective December 1, 2014. I haven't been given firm information yet, but let us assume that it is a stock sale. All employees of A will transfer over to B's payroll. Effective January 1, 2015, C-F, as well as A and B, (all being part of one controlled group) will either adopt a new safe harbor plan, or will sign on as participating employers in the plan currently maintained by A. If a new plan is established, then A's plan will be merged into the new plan. Since the employer wants this to be seamless, he wants the employees of what is now A, and who will be transferred to B effective the date of the sale, to be continued to be allowed to defer, based on the payroll that will now be from B. Do you see any problem with B just signing on as a participating employer to A's plan for the balance of 2014, then having all of this, (either via new plan/merger or everyone signing on as a participating employer in A's plan) being handled under the one plan for 2015? I feel like I may be missing something, but then I think I'm not missing something. Sigh...