Mike Preston

And I won't. I'm not here to shill for one brokerage over another.

Depends on how much the contribution was to the DB plan to make it sufficient. I'm saying 404a7 applies with all of its worts. You started this with saying the DB contribution had been made by July 31, 2016. Some portion, if not all, of the contributions made between 1/1/2016 and 7/31/2016 might have been deductible and deducted in 2015. To the extent not deducted in 2015 it would be deductible in 2016. To the extent it is deductible in 2016 404a7 applies if there is a PS plan involved.

One participant only plans are a marketing gimmick. I am not aware of anybody who offers what I consider to be administration for free. Are you saying that Ameritrade, Vanguard or E-Trade provide "One participant" plans a compliant document, custodian and/or trustee services, 5500 filing, transmittal of withholding and 1099 services for free? Note that I intentionally left out anything which falls under the rubrick of contribution determination. I was under the impression that none of the free services offered 5500 filings.

"If you want a one-participant/small business plan with after-tax contributions you are going to need a TPA. You are not going to be able to use their no cost marketed plan. That is my point. " And I'm telling you that an absolutely free, off the shelf 401(k) plan from a major brokerage firm allows for after-tax. Now, just because it is available doesn't mean that it is wise for the OP to use such a document without engaging a TPA.

I see no reason why 404a7 wouldn't apply.

Ignore Calavera's response. He is confused between a direct rollover (which an under $200 distributable amount is unlikely to have available) and a regular rollover (where the participant rolls over the amount received within 60 days of receipt).

Yup.

It might be the answer you wanted, but it isn't correct. In order to be an excludable employee one must not otherwise receive an allocation. Sorry. I know BG knows this, but it *IS* tax season!

Some of this is incredibly incorrect. 1) You would not rollover the assets to the "new plan", you would roll them over to the new account at the new Custodian/Trustee. 2) I just checked the first document I had from a very large brokerage and after-tax are most certainly allowed. 3) 1099-R's???????? All I have time to comment on.

I'm with the Orange man (or woman).

Bill, you are being way too nice here. There is such a fundamental disconnect here between what the OP is asking about and the real world that I am almost speechless.

It does kind of make one's eyes go dizzy.

I was able to download "2016 Partic Count.xlsx".

Very nice.

And just to be clear, the reduced fee "should" apply. We just received approval on one which covered a key employee so we couldn't use the standard correction checkboxes. But we just copied and pasted the language of the standard correction checkboxes as an invitation to have the IRS approve the submission in the same manner. They did. And while we warned the client that the reduced fee might not apply, we submitted only the reduced fee and the IRS accepted it. That, and $4.95 will get you a tall coffee somewhere.

What John said.

Did you really mean that it was established in 1984 and frozen 1 year later? And then it was kept frozen for over 30 years? If so, somebody has some serious explaining to do. From the sound of things you need a lot more information than can be provided here; there are just too many issues that bear on the discussion. By far the best person to discuss this with will be the actuary for the plan. Or the administration firm that has handled the preparation of IRS forms the last few years.

I think I ended up having to rename it as something other than an .xls file. I think I used .pdf.

Not only tripped, but flat on your face.

I'm with Austin here. Even the most rudimentary software should limit.

Yes, they can "disclaim" their interest. The attorney for the estate should be familiar with the requirements.

Drop the "non-" part and you've got it!

"they" = "earnings"

I read the OP a bit differently. Certainly the uncashed checks to the extent they represented payments for periods prior to death are part of the periodic payments, can't be rolled over and are cashable by the estate. Any uncashed checks to the extent they represent payments for periods after death should be returned, uncashed, to the plan. The death benefit payable to the beneficiary is rollable. Now, where it gets confusing is if there are checks which represent payments for periods after death which the plan allows to be cashed by the beneficiary and then reduces the death benefit payable by the amount of those checks. In such a case I would treat the entirety of the death benefit as a lump sum eligible for rollover.

Sigh. So true.