Belgarath

Thank you.

This is pretty hard to answer, since the document terms will govern. Some documents, by the way, still provide that you start taking RMD's at age 70-1/2 even if you are not an owner. In general, the plan will specify when a benefit is payable, such as normal retirement date, etc.. It will also have language specifying that even if a participant has elected to defer receipt of their benefits as permitted by the plan, that the minimum distribution requirements will override the election to defer receipt of their benefits. So the plan will distribute the required minimum, whether the participant wants it or not.

You can have a SEP at the same time as another QP. You just can't do it using the IRS 5305 model SEP document. But there are many places that sponsor prototype SEP's that would allow a combination.

I wasn't going to say anything, but I suppose since we are all a bit inclined toward technical language, that this should be "rangifer" rather than wapiti. Wapiti is an elk, I believe. I recall a little story about Rudolf Nicholyevich, who lived with his wife near Gorky Park. One afternoon, as he was eating his meal of tea, borscht, and black bread, he looked out the window. "Would you look at that" he grumbled to his wife, "It's starting to rain." "No it isn't" replied his wife, "It's snowing." He said, "NO, it's raining." She replied yet again, "No, it's SNOWING." Whereupon he replied, as you've already guessed, "Rudolf, the Red, knows rain, dear."

Gburns - sorry, perhaps I didn't make my question clear. I know what the IRS said - I read the PLR. I wanted to know what Code Section(s)/Reg(s) that YOU think permit a surviving spouse do do a rollover, not in the surviving spouse's name, but in the name of the deceased spouse. That's the part I found odd in the PLR - obviously many folks have read these differently than I have, and it appears they were right and I was wrong. Not the first time, and won't be the last! So I'd appreciate your insight as to which Section(s)/Regs(s), under a literal reading, say that this can be done. I want to read it from someone else's viewpoint (that it is permissible) so I can see how I misinterpreted them before. Thanks.

All right, the general tenor HAHAHA of these titles reminds me of a little story my father wrote. At least he says he wrote it, and I believe him, although it is possible he's pulling my leg. But since he has the best vocabulary I've ever encountered, he probably did write it. Or could have. Has nothing whatsoever to do with Christmas, but you may enjoy it anyway. The Triad of Diminutive Porcine Quadrupeds The initial diminutive porcine quadruped fabricated his domicile of dessicated monocotyledenous herbage. The rami of angiospermous arborescent flora constituted the habitation of the secondary diminutive porcine quadruped, but the tertiary diminutive quadruped assembled his commorancy from adamantine hexahedrons. Then comes one Canis Lupus, petitioning entrance seriatim into each domicile by minatory declamations concerning extreme aeolian perturbations. The negativism expressed by the first two porcine quadrupeds brought about an ex parte response by the Lupus and the subsequent aeolian demolition of their domiciles. Shortly thereafter, said Lupus engaged in porciphagous gourmandising. Finally Canis Lupus approached the commorancy of the tertiary diminutive porcine quadruped and petitioned entrance by the same minatory pronouncements. The porcine's antiphon was, "The hirsute component of my lower mandible's distal extremity renders the option of breaching the exterior of my edifice a nullity." Thereupon, the Lupus repeatedly created aeolian perturbations of the most severe sort until he was totally enervated, but the commorancy of hexahedrons proved totally renitent.

All I want for Christmas is my two front teeth?

GBurns and BPicker - I hadn't realized that the regs allowed this. I had always understood that while it was clearly allowable for a spouse to roll over the deceased's account to their OWN IRA, I had always understood that the Services position was that a rollover was otherwise "personal" - could only be elected by the IRA owner. Obviously I was incorrect. Not that it necessarily matters now that the IRS has said it is ok, but I'd like to educate myself on this a bit - what specific section(s) of the regs is it that you interpret to allow this? Thanks very much.

Do - I might suggest that if you hope to get contructive answers on these boards in the future, you might want to refrain from that type of comment. Remeber, you are the one who solicited help. Mbozek provided a reasonable answer - you may not want to take the advice, but you aren't helping your cause any. These boards are for discourse between professionals, and although there are sometimes some intemperate responses, those who engage in that sort of conduct quickly get a "reputation." I would hope you don't want to be listed among them.

I agree. Although if in the 401(k) no employee made deferrals and if there were no employer contributions, then I think you could have the SIMPLE. I don't imagine that this is the case here...

See instructions for form 5304, under "Which Employers May Establish and Maintain a SIMPLE IRA Plan?" http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f5304sim.pdf

I would use 001. There would have been no reason to assign a plan number to the SEP.

Did anyone else find this odd? While it displays an unexpected level of flexibility and generosity by the Service, it does seem like a great departure from prior practice to allow the spouse of the deceased to exercise a rollover in the name of the deceased. I wonder if this will remain as quasi-official IRS thinking or if it will be changed in a future letter or ruling. Maybe the application is narrow enough so they didn't see it as a big deal?

mbozek - heckuva bad case of suicide, isn't it? If he isn't careful, Eli Manning is going to be joining him! Maybe it's really Jim Morrison in Grant's tomb. Pax, neat website article - I didn't know his wife was there either.

I don't think there is anything definitive. I've always assumed that the important thing is that the settlement rates are identical - that is, every 1,000 in the cash value at retirement in both the insurance and the annuity purchases exactly the same monthly lifetime benefit, and that all the life policies must have identical terms, and all the annuity policies have identical terms. (other than a permissible switch between carriers) This would make it very difficult, if not impossible, to have policies from different companies issued simultaneously, as the odds of the policies between companies being identical are slim. As far as the assertion that if there are both life and annuity policies the safe harbor can't be satisfied, I happen to disagree with that statement - even taking a charitable view of the IRS statements, I think at best they are stretching form over substance to an extreme degree.

Jimmy Hoffa?

Thanks Kurt. (It is Kurt isn't it? I Apologize if not) And here's a link to a case where there's actually some discussion of the statute of limitations, which agrees with what you said. http://sunset.backbone.olemiss.edu/~llibco...P.html#Footref2

The following is just a starting point. I am NOT!! an attorney, and I only know enough about this to recommend that you consult legal counsel. But maybe this will help you a little bit to get started. ERISA Itself - 29 U.S. Code 1113: No ERISA claim may be commenced after the earlier of -- (1) six years after the last action constituting a breach of ERISA duty, or the latest date on which a fiduciary could have cured a breach arising from an omission; or (2) three years after the earliest date in which the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the breach or violation. "Actual Knowledge" requires proof that plaintiffs know both the events that constitute the ERISA breach or violation, and that those events constituted an ERISA claim. Montrose Med. Group v. Bulger, 243 F. 3d 773, 787 (3d Cir. 2001).

Since you aren't the employer, and the fees aren't an obligation of the employer, I don't see how reimbursement could be considered a contribution subject to 404. I also don't necessarily see a 401(a)(4) issue here. And I applaud the fact that you don't want to shaft the participants. A couple of things come to mind - sounds like the maintenance fee is 6.00 per year higher with the new system. I'd be very hesitant to charge them more on an existing loan than the already agreed upon (and paid) fees. How did you handle it in the past where a participant prepaid a loan, and you had already deducted 5 years (or 30 years if for a mortgage loan, for example) of fees? Did you reimburse? If not, then there's possibly a discrimination issue. As far as the initiation fee - are they going to get hit with a second initiation fee when you switch over, or will this be reimbursed as well? As long as the total fees charged to existing participants with loans remain equal or go down in all cases, then I'm not sure I see any problems. But it's Monday, so I'm even less sharp than usual - maybe someone else will have clearer thoughts on the issues you raised.

I assume your Summary Plan Description has information to this effect. You could probably just copy the applicable page(s) to send with your cover letter.

I saw a very unusual situation on one of these many years ago. Employee didn't want the SEP contribution, because it was small and would have resulted in a lost IRA deduction. So the employee wrote a letter to the employer, saying that he objected to a SEP contribution on religious grounds, and would sue the employer for religious discrimination if the SEP contribution were established for him! So the employer didn't contribute. Personally, I felt like the whole thing was a sham cooked up between the employee and the employer, because I'd think that most employers would fire an employee who did this. But maybe it wasn't faked. I always wondered what the IRS would do if they happened to check this out.

Sorry, but that's not what I said. I said the combined plan limits would apply. That means that the deductible amount would be the GREATER of 25% or the DB cost. (See IRC 404(a)(7)) So your deductibility isn't necessarily limited to 25%.

Tell them you're a lawyer AND an insurance salesman.

Just some general thoughts... First, the combined plan deduction limits under IRC 404 do apply. Second, I can't imagine why anyone would want a 412(i) plan unless their deduction for the 412(i) was going to exceed 25% anyway, so in that case, the DC is nondeductible anyway. But maybe some of the design gurus here can give you a reason why this would be desirable. Finally, if they are going to install a 401(k) DEFERRAL ONLY plan in conjunction with the DB, then this would be ok.

Here's another related thread. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?s...=0entry100125