Mike Preston

Not only is it legal, but unless there is a 125 plan it may be illegal to do it any other way! Remember employers are forbidden from asking marital status or family status. So if an employer offers family medical coverage a new employee that is single has no way of communicating the fact that they are single until after hired. A cafeteria plan can smooth the difference out equitably.

Correct.

You need to ask someone at the "group annuity contract."

Effectively making the date the loan is paid off a bit sooner. There is typically no reamort.

You are ignoring the specific opinion of someone who goes out of his way to recognize alternatives based on the existence of any reasonable position. He does not, in this case. It would take a lot to cause my opinion to be different from the EOB.

Not necessarily. It depends on plan language. The OP stated it as a fact. If it is not a fact the answer changes.

Correct.

Money is fungible. Let mom give a gift of $x to be accessed immediately at pay date to the extent of the load repayment. Do not amend the plan for this circumstance.

A persnickety IRS agent could threaten to disqualify the entire rollover. Some clients are seriously penny wise and pound foolish.

It shouldn't.

But since when has the fact that you have to do a general test stood for the proposition that one is very likely to fail said test?

Not if they independently satisfy 410(b).

Better late than never!

Huh?

If every participant is in their own group and the document says that forfeitures reduce contributions one can calculate forfeitures as per the plan document to determine minimum annual additions and then set the otherwise determined individual allocation amount such that the net effect of the forfeiture allocation is subsumed by the client's determination of allocation amount. Yes, it is an annual addition.

Yes.

Awww, maybe permitted disparity to the rescue? Unlikely.

I believe there is a Code section that would have allowed you to escape the excise tax. 4972c7? But you don't need it anymore.

90-49

If that is the criteria, then it is indeed ridiculous.

You would think wrong. I've never seen it done.

fmsinc, have you read 1.401(a)(9)-6?

Dear Lord, give me strength!

Correct. None.

Put the plan in a position that is as close as possible to where it would have been had the error not been made. IOW, distribute the deferrals with earnings.