Briandfox

Thanks, good cite.

If 50% of the vested account balance is used to secure the loan, shouldn't that portion of the account balance be frozen during the life of the loan?

Follow up question, if a participant is current on a loan and the plan allows for in service distributions, can a participant take an in service distribution of their total account balance even though the loan is outstanding? I think they can and their account balance is not collateral or security for the loan but for some reason it rubs my boss the wrong way because a participant is generally limited to taking 50% of their vested account balance when they take a loan. He thinks the account balance is security for the loan. I don't.

Aren't loan offsets eligible for rollover?

Yep, the loan isn't in default, it is current. I think I know where you are going with this (loan offset is triggered on default if the plan has in service distributions?).

In that situation is the hardship distribution not offset against the remaining balance of the loan?

If a participant elects to have an in service distribution when there is an outstanding loan to the participant is it mandatory that the in service distribution trigger an offset for the amounts of the outstanding loan receivable? Situation is as follows, say a participant has a 50k loan outstanding from the plan and a non-loan balance of 50k. The participant is eligible for an in service distribution and wants to take an in service distribution of the 50k and roll it over to an IRA. For whatever reason, he wants to retain the loan balance in his account and wants to make repayments, as in he does not want to treat this as a loan offset. Is that ok? Is there anything in the code or regs. that makes a loan offset mandatory in these circumstances? All, I can see is that the terms of the plan document and promissory note govern. What if both are slient?

Hello all- Since April 30, 2016 falls on a Saturday, does that mean we have until May 1, 2016 (the next business day) to submit PPA Plan restatements to the IRS via Form 5307? Thanks

Just curious, anything on this or it's just fine.

I know the general fees have changed (generally reduced) under Rev. Proc. 2016-8. But, have the special fees indicated on the last 9-2015 8951 remained the same? Thanks.

I believe that for purposes of qualified plans, in determining whether or not a brother sister control group exists, the shareholders of the two or more organizations being analyzed need to be individuals, defined as individuals, trusts or estates. If the direct sharholders are partnerships, not individuals, does the inquiry stop there. Or do you look to see who the owners of the partnerships are and attribute ownership through the partnership to them and see if a brother sister controlled group exists through organizational attributions. Thanks

I don't think so, because technically that money is owed to the participants if the settlement encompasses excess fees that were charged to participant accounts. However, if the distributions to each participant would result in a $0 after accounting for distribution fees, custodial fees, etc... Then it would make sense to refuse the settlement fee. That, and in this situation if the employer accepted the money (as opposed to the plan), I think it would be taxable as a reversion to the employer (excise tax, etc.)

Thanks Fiduciary Guidance Counsel. So basically if the costs of administering the settlement exceeds the value, we don't have to do it because the net effect is the sum total of the expenses, and then some, will run negative.

A 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan was terminated and paid out over 2-years ago. The Trustees just received information from the former custodian that they would receive a payment as part of some class action settlement because the Plan was charged "too much." Questions: 1. How should this money be accounted for? We are thinking it should be paid out to the participants pro-rata (to the extent the charges affected each participant's account balance). 2. A final 5500 filing was already done over 2 years ago. Do we simply do another final 5500 filing in the year of asset recovery? 3. One consideration here is to try to minimize audit risk, will the filing of a final 5500 filing 2 plus years subsequant to the execution of a plan termination amendment and resolution trigger it for audit, or make this an "ongoing plan." Thanks

We typically exclude all items of compensation listed under Treas. Reg. 1.414(s)-1©(3), such as "reimbursements or other expense allowances, fringe benefits (cash and noncash), moving expenses, deferred compensation, and welfare benefits." It occurs to me that amounts deferred under 125(a) could be a welfare benefit, which we would typically include in comp under our plans. Does anyone know if 125(a) elections are included in the exclusion as welfare benefits? I have found nothing that clearly defines what a welfare benefit is under the reg. Most people seem to believe that, whatever it is, it is an employer (not an employee) funded benefit. Thanks