RatherBeGolfing

I'm not sure if they will let you not have electronic access, but if you never register there is no login info to steal right?

We use Ftwilliams fulfillment service for 1099's, but doesn't FIRE go down like this every year? I swear I laugh at the notice every year :/ Edited for clarity...

I agree with Lou and M2C here. The regs are silent as to what happens when a non 5% owner terminates after 70 1/2 but is rehired after the RBD. A 5% owner who has started taking RMDs can't stop taking them by becoming a non 5% owner, so applying the same logic, you can't stop RMDs for a rehired non 5% owner. Lou is also correct that the IRS agreed with that position at an ASPPA annual Q&A. It is not an official position, but still...

Agreed, even if the spouses are not attributed ownership, the minor child is attributed ownership from both which still creates a CG. For community property states, you can still qualify for the exception to spousal attribution. It gets a bit more complicated but community property interest can be relinquished, and then there are other instances where property is separate property even though you are in a community property state

A great resource, but remember that not every provider will report to the IRS so you might be missing a bunch until you self report it.

Ah I miss the law school days with unlimited use of Lexis and Westlaw What class is it for? There are tons of topics within ERISA so I would pick one that you are at least somewhat interested in because it really helps when you try to get those writing juices flowing and professors pick up on that real fast. It has been a while since law school but feel free to PM me if you want to talk about topic ideas and what direction to take them J

Totally unacceptable. Run!

I have seen some really creative document provisions so I'm sure it is possible. You would probably need an IDP to do it though, so unless you have other provisions that require an IDP, or a desire to have an IDP, is it worth it when all you need is a simple amendment if limits change?

Yes, but answer depends on circumstances. Short answer, if the plan does not 1) offer annuities and 2) the employer (or related ER if a CG) does not offer any other DC plans, you can distribute without consent even if the account balance exceeds the plan's cash out limit. Even if you don't fit that answer there are ways to do it, just not as simple.

Yes. For my stacked match plans I calculate the exact percentage for the fixed match and simply amend year by year as needed.

Yep, that was how I looked at it too. And if I missed that when I did my final fee calculation I would just eat the cost and get it over with.

I agree with your guess. Little has constructive ownership through the option, so you have your controlled group. You can restrict an option to price, and all you need for constructive ownership is the option, there does not have to be any type of intent to actually exercise it. Following that logic, the probability of Little ever having the ability to exercise the option is is irrelevant for constructive ownership. J

Typically it's because no one wants to pay for another year of administration. I agree that is normally the clients position. Maybe I'm just a little conservative when it comes to things like this and I simply wouldn't give the client an option that cuts corners to save $.

FWIW I have been told no on this before as the RMD is not just an obligation of the participant but also a qualification issue for the plan. On a practical level, I know that people do it this way and hope for the best. In the few instances where I have had this come up, I have been able to get the RMD amount reversed and paid from the plan so that we could show that the mistake was corrected. I have never had it come up on audit so I can't speak to how an auditor would look at it.

I agree with you 100%. I only do them as a courtesy to other service providers I do business with. They do not actually generate revenue, and the client needs a lot more hand holding.

Is there a reason why another plan year is a big deal? If you do all your other distributions in 2016 and you are left just the one owner to deposit and distribute in 2017 when you can accurately determine comp, the 2017 plan year should be a very minor inconvenience that could be dispatched in a few hours. Am I missing a reason why 2017 must be avoided even if doing so creates more problems than it solves? Not trying to be flippant about it, I just don't see a problem with going into 2017 to do it right.

I tend to agree with you, but I have also heard some promoters make a similar claim. That said, I have also been told that all plan sponsors should "protect themselves" with a "316 fiduciary"... I think it depends on what you mean by 404© disclosure. The plan has to disclose to the participants that the plan is intended to be 404© compliant and will not be responsible for investment losses. This is normally disclosed in the SPD but would not be an annual requirement. I guess you could call the QDIA and 404a disclosures part of the overall disclosures you need in order to satisfy 404©, thereby imposing an annual requirement.

You say that A dissolved and B became the sponsor of A's plan, can you give us more detail on how this happened? How did B become the sponsor? Was there an asset sale? Stock sale? Did the employees terminate with A and get hired by B, or did their employment simply transfer to B? The devil is in the details here...

Matt, I see your point fees, but I disagree. You will always have to pay something to get competent advice. There is no such thing as set it and forget it for compliance. As to ethical or professional standards, there is no requirement that you have a designation or certification. Most professional rules of conduct require that the practitioner is competent in the area. The problem with your situation is that you can't simply learn a limited amount in order to just deal with "solo 401k's", because it is a marketing term. In order to be competent to work with one participant plans, you also need to understand single employer qualified plans. Who is going to create the plan document? Are you competent to answer the questions in an adoption agreement? Do you have a good grasp on compensation, contributions, deductions, etc.? Are your clients going to get W-2 comp or are do you need to do an earned income calculation? If you are actually looking to learn, I would suggest ASPPAs QPA designation. If you work through those exams you should have at least the basic understand of how plans work and what can create problems.

Matt, the point you are missing (or perhaps simply overlooking) is that a client who cant afford a few hundred a year on competent and qualified advice should probably look for savings vehicle more in line with what they can afford. And honestly, if you are putting away $18k+ a year, it is not that you cant afford it, you are simply too cheap for your own good. This isn't Michelangelo vs a handyman for a tree house, this is hiring a librarian to your electric work. Sure she may have read up on how to draw wires and how to ground, but there is a good chance she will burn your house down. On a side note, I'm not sure what ethical standards you are held to, but most professionals in this forum are held to circular 230 or higher, and providing services for something you are not qualified for would be a big no no. Something to consider.

Reviving this topic to add some comments from ASPPA Annual - Judging by comments made in several sessions, the new 5500 will not be ready for 2019 - Current estimates indicate that software providers will need at least 2 years to develop, code, and test the systems for the new 5500. This would mean that they would need to have guidance early 2017 to be functional for 2019. This does not seem to be even remotely likely - DOL funding is an issue. No funding, no guidance, no new 5500 - Don’t expect any big changes until a few years into the next decade - IRS only changes could come sooner but were once again delayed The best way to avoid dealing with major changes to 5500 reporting? Retire J (at least that was the closing argument made by Janice Wegesin)

I would imagine a partner only plan could have vesting schedules. Also, misconceptions such as "all one-participant employer contributions are fully vested" could certainly lead to having a vesting schedule even if it wasn't the intention...

Nothing in the Q&A on 403(b) documents. On a related note, the new format where the IRS does not prepare a written answer at all kinda sucks...

Not that I have heard so far, I'll let you know if they comment on it in the Q&A.

Matt, please listen to Austin and the rest of here with decades of experience. Don't put your clients and yourself in harms way by trying to save a dollar in a very complex industry. Good luck.