Mike Preston

I think I disagree. It is just as reasonable to interpret it as meaning "suspend for at least 6 months" and that silence as to whether restarting is automatic means that the participant must restart.

Seems pretty clear that the MEP has some 'splainin to do.

It is something I have relied upon for years and years and years. Anybody who has followed the technical details of coverage and non-discrimination testing should be familiar with this issue. I'm sure there are a gazillion posts on this issue (some by me) buried in this forum. Maybe somebody else (Tom?) has easy access to a citation other than the reg itself. But for me, the reg itself is quite clear on this issue. Anything that has the effect of naming somebody out of the plan triggers the inability to use the ABT.

There is a long established principle, reiterated over many years, by many IRS representatives that coverage can not use the ABT if the plan is drafted in a way that is the equivalent of naming specific participants. Do we all agree on that? There is a specific reg provision that states exactly this. The IRS has further said that this provision extends to your plan if the effect of your plan's provisions is that one or more participants get nothing. That is, you are stuck using 70% because, by definition, your COVERAGE is not a reasonable classification. Give them each a penny (I wouldn't go that low, but it does satisfy the rules technically) and you are ok (and then make sure they satisfy gateway, if needed). And, of course, the plan can't be top-heavy, either, or you are looking at a top-heavy entitlement of something other than zero.

When it is as clear as this is (a violation of 410(a)), I don't think an "ERISA counsel CYA" will protect your firm very well. What you need is an opinion of your own, unconflicted counsel that reliance on said ERISA expert's opinion is reasonable.

Usually the latter.

I still say run.

Doesn't it depend on the technical definition of "successor" plan. Have you looked that up? I seem to recall that the definition is surprising. I just don't remember (and don't have time to look it up) whether the technical definition of successor plan applies to this particular rule.

No, but it needs a bit more seasoning. You describe what is required. But the plan can be more generous. You have to follow the terms of the plan.

I would still run. Maybe before running I'd send the ERISA expert an excerpt from the 410(a) regs that make it clear as a bell that just because you satisfy 410(b) it doesn't mean you satisfy 410(a).

You sure?

Can't answer a question when there is a premise I disagree with. You have a 410(a) violation if the under 5 YOS folks don't get anything. Are you sure you explained that to the ERISA expert? Are you asking with respect to the not-yet-effective proposes regs? Wouldn't the answer to that be: "who the $^#% knows?"?

One 990T, but check with an accountant to be sure. The "trust" pays the tax. I would hope that the plan and trust has language saying that the tax brought about by a specific SDBA would be paid from the SDBA, or is silent and therefore up to the discretion of the Trustee. But it is possible the plan is mis-drafted and calls for something else. If it provides guidance at all, you have to follow it. I don't think "the taxation is in excess of $1,000" is a correct statement. I think you have to file the form if the UBTI exceeds $1,000. But again, check the instructions to the form.

Have you had an expert run the Average Benefits Test? Based solely on what you say I, for one, am not comfortable relying on your statement that the plan fails coverage.

You might want to re-word your request.

Yes.

Have you seen the sample?

My guess would be illiquid assets.

I know you don't want to hear it, but............ RUN!!!

Let's parse this a bit more. Going back to the original post (and reading more carefully) it looks to me like the payments being made to the individual doctors are going through their corporations. So, Doctor's Group, Inc. is filing 1099's for the amounts paid to the individual corporations. If so, then if it can be established that the services being provided by the individual doctors are neither management services nor should they be considered employees of Doctor's Group, Inc. then I agree that it is not an ASG. I would be very careful about representing that they are anything other than employees of Doctor's Group, Inc. and instead ask to see an analysis performed by legal counsel.

I suggest that ownership isn't necessary.

How can it be anything other than an ASG?

Amen.

The bank is free to place restrictions on the IRA's it allows. If it won't allow, for example, hard to value assets then if you have an IRA that has such investments at another institution you would not be able to transfer such investments. Similarly, if it won't allow a trust, as beneficiary, to own an inherited IRA then all you can do is search for a financial institution that will. You might want to ask your bank for a copy of their IRA beneficiary designation form. If it allows a trust to be designated as a beneficiary you could then ask them what they would do if an IRA owner died that had named a trust as beneficiary.

Huh? Read the linked article. A trust can certainly be a beneficiary and after death would become the owner.