MrKnowItLittle

The plan says the RMD must abide by the forms of distribution allowed in AA. The AA has a special box for partial payments of RMDs in this section but it was not checked, only lump sum was. The plan uses the 70 1/2 and 5% owner rules, and did not make the election for 70 1/2 regardless of employment. They conveniently did not put these in the definitions section of the document and buried them 3 pages into the RMD rules section. This means the participant never met the RMD trigger, and furthermore could of only satisfied the RMD from the plan as a lump sum.

That is correct. And for curiosities sake, even if the participant was allowed to have an RMD, because a lump sum is the only form of benefit allowed and they did not tick the box for to allow partials for RMDs, the only option was a lump sum correct?

Wouldn't 12 months via elapsed time be more generous by default, and in my mind a very reasonable approach? Maybe there is something in the ERISA outline book? There has to be someone using elapsed time who has used the OE approach in testing. And by default, the idea behind using elapsed time is they are not/cannot track hours.

So I dug down into the document again. What do you know there is a special glossary definitely definition, stuck in the middle of the BPD not in the front definitions section that defines the RMD terms.RBD is the later of 70 1/2 and termed, or termination after 70 1/2 and not a 5% owner. They do not have checked in the AA appendix to elect start RMD at 70 1/2 ragardless. Also the document only allows for lump sums (they didn't check the box for partial withdrawals only allowed for RMDs). Does that mean the participants only option should have been a lump sum if this was allowed?

The document says this: 1) Required beginning date. The Participant's entire interest will be distributed, or begin to be distributed, to the Participant no later than the Participant's "required beginning date." There is no further definition defined in the document, so I would refer to the regulations. Which is this case basically say the distribution was not required. Am I miss-construing the word "required."

You can definitely grab all the low hanging fruit people, under 1 YOS, never met entry date etc. Can you play it safe and include the others? Basically your using OE only looking at it on a elapsed time basis, and disregard the hour component.

An RMD was done before a participant required beginning date. The plan does not allow for in-service withdrawals, and only allows for lump sum distributions. Can we still call this an RMD? Participant was still employed, over 70.5, but not a 5% owner.

Am I allowed to use component plan testing to pass the ADP/ACP Test same as for Cross-Testing?

Are people using cloud computing services or maintaing their own computer/servers etc.? Is anyone worried about the exposure to hacking/ lost data etc. with information held in the cloud?