Mike Preston

A plan must allow Roth contributions as a condition precedent to establishing any Roth accounts. If that condition is met, then the plan must provide for in-plan transfers. If one meets the conditions imposed by the plan in order to transfer an existing non-Roth amount then said existing non-Roth amount can be transferred to a Roth account. A plan must provide for accurate recordkeeping.

Yes, it was.

Chip, the inherent nature of an -11(g) amendment is that it is NOT prospective. It is intended to be retroactive.

Sure. It counts as a 401(m) contribution. Of course, it would need to be allowed by the document.

I have no idea what the above is saying so I don't think it is what I mean. As far as this goes, I never mentioned the use of an -11(g) amendment structured as a design-based safe harbor. You would have to slog through -11(g) to confirm but the language there certainly seems to allow it. See -11(g)(3)(v)(A) and (B).

QNEC

Yes, and no. An -11(g) amendment must be additive. If you are comfortable with the allocation prior to the -11(g) is zero then as long as the -11(g) benefits satisfy the -11(g) requirements, it works. Did you mean 20 or 50?

Many state court judges rebel against the reach of federal rules. I testified in a divorce matter once and I, ever so gently, let the judge know that he could not compel an ERISA fiduciary not a party to the divorce to take any specific action other than through a QDRO. The judge issued an opinion that included a paragraph that said something like this: "This court declines to exercise its option to order {redacted} to perform certain acts requested by Plaintiff." He wanted me to know that if he felt like it, he could have ordered {redacted} to do anything!

It shouldn't.

Depends. History? Plan provisions?

Not if it isn't a qualified plan.

So, while I'm here, my second favorite software program is XYplorerFree which can be found at https://www.xyplorer.com/free.php. It is a file manager that, while generally inferior to Windows Explorer (so it doesn't operate as a replacement for Windows Explorer), has two features that I use almost every day. 1) You know how Windows Explorer uses an address bar to identify the tree node (i.e., folder) being displayed? XY goes one step better by using a Location combobox that takes multiple locations easily (you just separate them with a vertical bar). So, if you have one tree with billing information and another tree for non-discrimination files you can put both trees into a single combobox and XY will now return results based on the combined folders (XY will of course pick up all sub-folders if you check the box "Include subfolders"). Add a filename filter (like "*.xls*") and you can easily find the last excel spreadsheet that you worked on for a particular client without having to search multiple places. 2) XY has the fastest content search engine I've ever used. Of course, I'm talking about content searches that are not pre-indexed. Those would be faster, but I've never found a content indexer that is meant to be running 24/7 that I like. They just bog down the system too much. XY has a series of filters that is mind numbingly comprehensive. And one of those filters is content. So, it is a simple matter to put "*.pdf" in the filename filter, a couple of folder trees in the Location combobox, and some specific content like "Required Minimum Distribution" into the content filter and XY will return results of every pdf you have in those folders that mentions "Required Minimum Distribution". XY has, in my opinion, too many features which makes the interface a bit intimidating. I love the program because of the handful of features I use and am quite content to ignore all the other features.

LOL. Proper nouns are sometimes ambiguous. When I typed "Everything from voidtools.com.", I meant: "The windows program which is called "Everything" which can be downloaded from the website voidtools.com." So, we are talking about the same thing!

Frankly, the vast majority of small plans are better off not selecting such a provision. If it happens that the top-heavy or 401(a)(4) considerations are important to a client I would recommend selecting the provision. I doubt that there are any 411(d)(6) considerations.

Not too difficult to conjure up. In service distributions stick around for Top Heavy testing for a limited time. Hence, a plan that might otherwise not be Top Heavy might find itself subject to Top Heavy minimums and increased vesting. Also, a plan that used Accrued to Date testing might find that the inclusion and projection of previously distributed funds would have materially different non-discrimination test results.

The Most Valuable has to be tested at every age. It just so happens that as long as the plan's actuarial equivalence is more generous than the standard rates (which will happen almost all of the time), it is a waste of time to do the MVAR calculations at any time other than the end of the timeframe (or beginning, depending on what end you think one should start at).

My tingly spidey sense is telling me that it may be related to Mimeo 57-17. I used to have a copy. Could be all wet, though.

Seriously? Until you factor in the cost of defending a charge of drug smuggling for the employee along with a conspiracy charge for the self-funded plan Plan Administrator. Have you run this by a knowledgeable attorney? Seriously!

Pharmacy tourism is, by definition, illegal, isn't it? Far more comfortable with dental/medical tourism.

Closer to "not allowed" than "allowed". Can you post a redacted version?

Unless they are in an excluded class, right?

Everything from voidtools.com. Free, and oh, so useful. It silently indexes all file names and path names. Did that spreadsheet you just worked on last week (for most of the week) disappear? Maybe you accidentally dragged it to a different client folder. Not to worry. Just type "*.xls*" in the address bar and it will list all of your spreadsheets. Then click on the Date Modified column so that the filenames are sorted with most recent at the top. So much faster than windows search (and if you turn windows search off your use of Windows Explorer is also much faster). If you use any kind of additional filter the search results are almost instantaneous (e.g., "*Jones*.xls*").

Or just go with the EPCRS correction. It may have changed since I last reviewed this issue but isn't it a $250 filing fee and the correction is to exclaim loudly: "Aw, snap! We shouldn't have contributed to the SEP, so we heretofore promise not to make any further contributions to the SEP. Thanks for listening!" Or did that correction method go away?

Did you mean somebody else?

If it is an LLC taxed as a corporation, and the corporation is taxed as an S-Corp, then none of the K-1 counts for pension purposes.