Mike Preston

Nope. Can't take plan RMD's from IRA's.

Participant is right. A portion of the 7/2017 rollover wasn't eligible for rollover. That amount (plus appropriate earnings, if any) should have been distributed from the IRA in order to avoid an excise tax for over-contributions to participant's IRA. The good news is that the forced RMD can be rolled as it is within 60 days.

RBG, see the last line of this: http://www.napa-net.org/news/technical-competence/regulatory-agencies/change-vcp-fee-structure-bumps-fees-smaller-plans/?mqsc=E3929209&utm_source=WhatCountsEmail&utm_medium=NAPA_Net_ListNapa-Net Daily&utm_campaign=2018-01-08_eNewsNAPA_Mon

Not to me.

For 415 purposes all earnings should be included (check the document). For other purposes, they may or may not be included (again, check the document).

I think it is even more inclusive. The reversion tax applies if the plan was EVER INTENDED to be qualified. Anybody who takes a different position is asking for the IRS to punish their client.

I thought you were describing a circumstance where the quarterly payments were 60 days delayed, not a circumstance where the bi-weekly payments were 60 days delayed. Don't have time to research it now but my algebraic angel who oversees my subconscious is telling me it should be OK because otherwise ANY loan whose first payment is delayed more than the payment interval would fail. No?

Another myth. The mere fact that the plan calls for everyone in their own group doesn't, by itself, exclude the ABT. The plan sponsor must have exercised the right to make at least one participant who is otherwise eligible for an allocation to define that participant's allocation as zero.

I'm having a hard time understanding what you think is the problem. The payment made in the first quarter (1/15 through 4/14) is the same as the payment in the last quarter, isn't it?

I have always thought that the targeted QNEC language was intended to limit aounts that could be taken into account for purposes of non-discrimination testing. Whether that be ADP/ACP or amounts testing. I would have no hesitation presenting a targeted QNEC approach in a VCP filing. The worst they can do is turn you down.

Agree with the ability to commute upon plan termination. But I thought the cited reference made it clear that change of employment status doesn't provide such flexibility unless modification is available without change in status (such as would be the case if the initial form of distribution was an installment).

There is no such thing as "cash" accounting for purposes of dealing with contributions. Absolutely none. The deduction can be taken in either year, subject to the following: 1) The plan termination date is in 2018 2) The amount considered and deducted in 2017 when added to what already has been considered and deducted for 2017 doesn't exceed the deductible limit under 404 for 2017. 3) If the plan termination date is in 2017 then there are some at the IRS who say that carte blanche exists with respect to 2017 deductions but 2018 deductions could be substantially impaired.

What he said!

Isn't that the opposite of what has been suggested?

If one is concerned about an actuarial gain on simultaneous death the plan should allow distribution in the form of installments increasing at 4.99% per year. Anything else involves potential exposure to a malpractice claim.

Name of responsible party is Trustee. Use Trustee's SSN.

Manatee, from where I sit you have found, read and understand the regulations. The regulations are silent on the issue of determining the RMD (amount not rollable) in a transition year. The transition year in this instance is 2017. The contemplation was that a distribution with a 1 year payment interval made on (or before) 4/1/2017 would satisfy 401(a)(9). The next contemplated payment would be on (or similarly before) 4/1/2018. With that said, are you really in a position whereby the remainder being distributed to this individual will take place in 2017? Like, tomorrow? If not, things get much simpler. Essentially, the 2018 RMD becomes easy to calculate: the lump sum divided by the appropriate 2018 factor. Things are more complicated because of the lack of guidance if, in addition to the 4/1/2017 payment, this individual is being completely cashed out in 2017. Before taking the time to describe what that might mean, please confirm that is still being contemplated. I'm sure all of us have stuff to do before 2018 that can't wait.

I'd still want to double check the actual document. Who knows what evil lurks?

No can do. Check the overlap rules of 1563/414.

No.

Ditto!

That is up to ERISA counsel.

And even if not by the end of the second plan year it might very well be an insignificant error allowing self-correction under EPCRS.

You can remove it prospectively as long as it isn't discriminatory to do so.

Give the money back net of losses, if any.