Mike Preston

I can't find anything at the moment that has a usable citation. So, how about a practical analysis? I submit that if an individual terminates early in year X and said individual would be increased pursuant to the top-heavy vesting schedule were the plan determined to be top-heavy it is therefore required that the top-heavy analysis be performed solely with information available at 12/31/X-1. Does that do it for you?

You heard it from somebody who stole it from the actuaries: https://actuarialjokes.com/ See joke #5

I used less words.

I think you are hallucinating a "not".

It is, indeed, a PLAN RMD.

I would use he most recent applicable table at the time.

I read your post as saying you have been engaged 10,000 times on this issue.

There are always design nuances. If goal is to maximize distributions under 415 then applicable mortality at 5% pre and post will do it. If one designs to actuarial tools made available to them then maybe a floating mortality table can't be accomodated. Etc., etc.

10,000?

Haven't seen to date.

I'm not at liberty to give specifics, but it is much more likely to be the former.

I recently went through this. The DOL investigator (they aren't auditors) took an mbox format without blinking. mbox includes all embedded attachments, doesn't it?

Let's restate the issue more precisely: Are monies rolled over from Plan A of Employer B to an IRA and then subsequently rolled over from that IRA to Plan B of Employer B treated as related or unrelated under T-32 of 1.416-1? I say unrelated because the second rollover is not "made to a plan maintained by the SAME EMPLOYER". That is, with respect to the rollover there is a plan from which the rollover is made and there is a plan to which the rollover is made. Both plans must be maintained by the same employer. SInce the IRA is not a plan maintained by AN employer it can never be a plan maintained by the SAME employer. Therefore, the rollover is unrelated. The only way it could potentially be treated as a related rollover is if the IRS asserts that the rollover to an IRA was a subterfuge of some sort, such as invoking a portion of the step transaction rules. In the situation you described I just don't see that happening. The only way to be absolutely sure would be to go the PLR route. Good luck with that.

Every bone in my body agrees with ETA. Have you read the definition of a related rollover?

How it is shown is based on the timing of the amendment (after val date or before val date: that is, it is a BOY or EOY val) along with whether, if applicable, a 412(d)(2) election is made. Ask the plan's actuary.

After taking a separate glance at the OP, it could be that there is a nuance here that bears delving into. Assume a plan provides for both but it has some additional language that requires a plan participant to elect either 100% pre-tax and 0% Roth or 0% pre-tax and 100% Roth with respect to any given contribution. As the OP states, because their payroll company can't support anything else. I agree with the OP that it doesn't appear to be a problem, compliance wise. I've never seen it directly addressed by the IRS, though.

IIRC the IRS is on record saying that Roth can only exist in a k plan that provides for both.

No.

No.

I don't think so.

Good point!

Who said anything about a SEP?

Seriously, Bob?

Might be a while. Sorry, swamped.. Tap me again in a few days if I don't respond.

Longer.