Belgarath

Thanks Tom, and I wouldn't "push it" by amending a plan after the 30-day advance deadline, but again, how is there any "decision" by the participant - reasonable or otherwise, with respect to getting employer money in a nonelective 3% safe harbor? You get it or you don't - ain't no choice. My point is not what the regulations say, and they seem pretty clear, but that they are unreasonable, and potentially detrimental to participants, so it seems like this would be a good item for the lobbying arm to target. Maybe I'm missing something. And on another note - delighted to hear you came through things ok! Sounds like a whole lot of folks in your area weren't so fortunate.

I seem to recall that in FAB 2007-02, consistent with Peter's point, the DOL opined that the employer could not "authorize" plan-to-plan transfers while remaining within the safe harbor. So an actual "Rollover" as ETA says, ought to be permissible as long as the 403(b) plan administrator isn't exercising any discretionary authority as to whether or not to accept the rollover.

Just curious - the requirement that the plan be amended by 30 days before the end of the plan year seems very strange. The IRS was very helpful in allowing mid-year amendments on SH plans - has any organization (ASPPA, etc.) also been advocating for a change to this 30 day requirement? Obviously, I can see requiring the amendment to be signed by the end of the plan year, but this is a nonelective 3% we are talking about. Absent the amendment, the participants get nothing. What is the sense in penalizing participants just because the employer misses the 30 day deadline? Seems like a no-brainer to allow an employer to "opt in" at any time up to the end of the plan year, with no notice requirement, either. Thoughts?

Thanks David - I was looking at 414(p) and ERISA 206(D) just a moment ago, and found he same thing. So it seems like the general answer is yes, a DRO issued by a state court CAN be recognized as a QDRO, if all the other requirements are satisfied.

That sort of circles back to the question of: CAN a QDRO be valid if the parties are still married - which in a "legal separation" they are.??? I don't know. Since a legal separation apparently provides for a division of property, it would seem reasonable that it can. But a legal separation is a creature of State law, as I understand it, so ERISA preemption might come into play? I really, really don't know the answer to this, but I'd love to hear from someone who does! Thanks.

First, I tend to agree with ESOP - this has VCP written all over it. SCP is available forever for "insignificant" errors, but this one covers everyone in the plan and occurs for many, many years, so it would be "significant" and therefore you are well beyond the SCP correction period for "significant" errors. However, first check your plan language carefully - it may permit, in the "boilerplate" language or language specific to deferrals, the Plan Administrator to (presumably on a uniform and nondiscriminatory basis) exclude certain compensation, etc. - certainly worth a look - documents sometimes have some very interesting provisions. What does the Summary Plan Description say? What do the deferral election forms say? If everything says, in essence, "W2" and doesn't leave any wiggle room, I think you are stuck with VCP, although as ESOP suggests, possible that you can get a VCP filing approved where retro amendment conforms to actual operations. Otherwise, I also don't think that just correcting for just the last three years will generally be acceptable to the IRS, but the great thing about VCP is you can ASK for anything. Just be prepared to have it rejected. You can also try a "John Doe" submission, but your attorney can advise you. Going to be a lot of work and expense, even under the best od circumstances, if you have to submit to the IRS. Good luck!

You may, however, possibly have trouble with vendor/recordkeeping platform - I don't know - haven't happened to run into this situation before. Some of them aren't too user-friendly with stuff that doesn't fit into a normal pigeonhole.

Great news - glad to hear it!

Let us know how y'all came through it, when you get a chance. I know you have bigger worries right now!

Very nice chart. Thanks!

Yeah, our document defines it (65/5) more liberally (in the participant's favor) than that - it specifies that the 5th anniversary discussed above is the 5th anniversary of the first day of the Plan Year IN WHICH participation in the Plan commenced. So if you have monthly entry dates, and enter on December 1, 2012, your 5-year anniversary is January 1, 2017, not December 1, 2017. Is there any reason that this would not be considered a "uniform" retirement age?

Hopefully your alligator there won't be able to navigate the greens by swimming on them! Best wishes.

For Tom Poje in Jacksonville, and anyone else, and their families and friends who may end up in the path or suffer the after-effects, my heartfelt best wishes for you all to come through this unscathed, or relatively so. We'll be thinking about you!

Pardon my being obtuse, but that still doesn't answer the question. Under the (changed) law, the tax return due date for a calendar year C-corp is April 15th. And unless I'm incorrect, from 2016 through 2025, the extended tax filing date for a CALENDAR year C-corp is September 15th. It doesn't become October 15th until 2026. Do you have a citation that says otherwise? In other words, I don't think a 6 month extension is valid in the specific situation in the OP. My understanding is that for C-corps with fiscal years ending OTHER THAN 12/31 or 6/30, then they are due on the 15th day of the 4th month, and a 6-month extension is indeed available from that date. P.S. - yes, I do agree about minimum funding deadlines. Ah, my apologies - I do see it now. based upon the IRS 7004 instructions, which are contrary to the law, but the IRS exercised its authority to do otherwise. Good to know - glad this post came up!

Where does it say 6 months? I guess I missed that. Under both 404(a)(6) and 1.401(a)-1(c), it refers to the extended filing date. For a calendar year C-corp, the extended filing date is, I believe, September 15th until tax years beginning in 2026. Can you elaborate on the "6 month" piece?

What K2 said. While I have not specifically looked in many documents for this, those where I HAVE needed to look have always had language in the base plan document. Typically spouse, "issue", parents, estate, etc.

Jash, FWIW, I'm not sure we are necessarily disagreeing, but perhaps stating it a bit differently. I read it as applying to businesses under common control, but in the context of determining a parent-subsidiary common control relationship for 415 purposes. For example, if I own 100% of corp A, and individually am a 55% partner in partnership B/C, this is not subject to 415(h). Similarly, (according to unofficial IRS comments) if I am a sole prop, and also am a 55% partner in partnership B/C, this also does not subject me to 415(h). If, on the other hand, I own 100% of corporation A, and the corporation itself is a 55% partner in partnership B/C, then yes, 415(h) applies, because this is now in a parent-subsidiary context, and would be considered under "common control" for 415 purposes. Not sure what others may think. I'll be interested to hear everyone's thoughts - maybe I'm just looking at this all wrong.

Hey Austin - yup. I'm assuming, of course, that there is no ASG. Entirely possible, I suppose, that if someone tried to get too cute with this concept that the IRS might attempt to give them a hard time somehow. They do have that ability...

Thanks! Anyone know of anything similar with regard to a Welfare benefit plan or Section 125 Plan?

Check with the consultant. What type of entity is the business? Could be anything.

I'm not so sure about that. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are saying, but the "replacing 80% with 50%" modification, for 415 purposes, applies ONLY to 1563(a)(1) parent-subsidiary groups. Doesn't sound like that is the case here. If both entities were corporations, and they did not exist at the same time for any period whatsoever, then I would assert that there is no controlled group. Now, if one business was unincorporated, for example, then that's a different situation.

No, but 415 limits for the individual participants still apply.

But, as Jpod suggested above, you had the benefit every year of spending the tax saving of income taxes that you would have otherwise paid to the government. I'm not suggesting that it was a good investment, nor suggesting that it was a bad one. I'm merely suggesting that your logic is flawed. Ultimately, you may be absolutely correct that was invested poorly. Unfortunately, short of legal action (expensive, and you may lose!) it is water under the bridge at this point.

Agree. I wasn't saying that the transition period was negated, only pointing out that service prior to the effective date of becoming a CG can't be "ignored" in A's plan forever. I should have made that clearer.

I'm a big fan of "solo-k" plans, for the simple reason that we've made a lot of money taking them over when they have been botched administratively, and either self-correction or VCP filing is required, and the investment house is no help. The fees are wonderful! Can you establish and properly run a solo-k? Absolutely. Will it work out, be handled properly, and will you get the good help you need from your broker/investment house? That I can't say. Be careful and do your homework, and hopefully it will work out fine. And remember that free advice over the internet, including from people like me, is worth what you pay for it.