RatherBeGolfing

At what point is it appropriate to start this question with "Robert has blurb..."? ?‍♂️ Joking aside, isn't the point of the section you are referring to that if you have a successor plan you no longer have a distributable event due to plan termination? If a successor plan exists, assets with distribution restrictions (elective deferrals and SH) are not distributable due to plan termination if a successor plan exists, while other contributions like profit sharing and non safe harbor match would be distributable even with a successor plan in place. So any participant who does not otherwise have a distributable event, would have to have their restricted contributions transferred to the successor plan or stay in terminated plan until a there is a distributable event. This is assuming you have the successor plan in place at termination. If you distribute all assets and then establish a new plan within the 12 month period following distribution, you have a big problem with the distributions you already did...

Yep, I believe Derrin Watson coined the "maybe not" term in an ASAP or Relius update after they came out.

@Pam Shoup suggestion above is great. It needs to be done by hand rather than typed on a computer. Studies have shown that doing it by hand increases memory retention significantly. When I was in law school I took all my lecture notes by hand and I did my outlines by hand before I put them into a word document. I do the same thing whenever I study for a designation or read a new proposed rule or law change. For actual studying I do something like this Week 1 Read Ch1 (or part 1, section 1, whatever), then outline Ch1 on the second read Week 2 Read Ch2 , then outline Ch2 on the second read, study Ch1-2 outline Week 3 Read Ch3 , then outline Ch3 on the second read, study Ch1-3 outline Do this until you have outlined all of the required material. The outline should mainly focus on the learning objectives from the syllabus unless there are new things there that you also feel are important. Since different sections are weighted more or less on the exam, you can substitute Ch1 above for whatever section is going to be used more on the exam, that way you read that outline each week and should know it well before the exam. There is no point in doing a 5 page outline on plan loans and a 1 page outline on testing if you are going to get one loan question and 10 testing questions...

Do you feel like you know the answers while taking the test? Or does it seem like the exam is nothing like the practice exam? Are there certain sections that are tripping you up? I know they have changed how they do the exams since I took them but they used to tell you if you need to improve on a certain section like distributions or testing or whatever. Overall, the syllabus is your best friend. it tells you what you are expected to know from each section/topic, and what percentage of the exam can be expected from that section.

We don't have enough information to answer this question. A divorce decree can meet the statutory requirements for a QDRO, so a separate QDRO is not required per se. A separate QDRO is much more common though.

No. Its not an issue. It does not favor the HCEs. The only reasonable way to look at this to see if HCEs are favored is looking a deposits YTD A simplified example. 1 HCE and 1 NHCE. NHCE gets funded over 10 payroll dates during the year, HCE gets funded once after the end of the year. Deposit HCE HCE YTD NHCE NHCE YTD 1 0.00% 0.00% 10.00% 10.00% 2 0.00% 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 3 0.00% 0.00% 10.00% 30.00% 4 0.00% 0.00% 10.00% 40.00% 5 0.00% 0.00% 10.00% 50.00% 6 0.00% 0.00% 10.00% 60.00% 7 0.00% 0.00% 10.00% 70.00% 8 0.00% 0.00% 10.00% 80.00% 9 0.00% 0.00% 10.00% 90.00% 10 0.00% 0.00% 10.00% 100.00% 11 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00%

Yes I would say its a plan amendment , but not an amendment that would put the pre-approved status in question (at least not with our may example above). As such it would need to be adopted by someone with the authority to amend the plan.

Do the two quoted sections above really mean different things? They both say that the plan may distribute immediately if the QDRO provides for it. If it was a requirement, if there was no choice at all, I would expect shall or will rather than may. I agree that it would be problematic for the fiduciary to have discretion on a case by case basis, basically deciding that AP1 gets a distribution now but AP2 does not. Could this not be taken care of with a written plan procedure that dictates whether APs are paid out immediately or not? Such a procedure does not sound inconstant with either quoted section above and the fiduciary would no longer have discretion.

Not in my pre-approved AA, but in the BPD The section dealing with distributions to alternate payees permits earlier distributions but does not require it.

I have had CPAs try that in the past, but it is plan comp. I always give them the EOB explanation and they back off. EOB current online edition CHAPTER 1A: IMPORTANT DEFINITIONS -PART I - Compensation - Part A - Item 1.g.

New comp doesn't mean you HAVE to cross test. Allocate based on integration at TWB and test on based on allocation rates rather than cross test.

I agree with Belgarath, the RMD would not trigger a distribution of the remainder of the account even if the document has a "single lumpsum" option only. I think that is a reasonable interpretation of most plan documents and does not need a special provision. Maybe a better way to look at it is that a rollover eligible distribution triggers the "single lumpsum only" requirement?

We always recommend lumpsum only, and have maybe one or two odd plans that wanted to allow periodic payments but it is never utilized. The more you can do to eliminate the opportunity for mistakes the better.

Why would the plan be insured under the TPAs E&O? Its there to protect the TPA against claims, not the plan...

Again, you are ignoring the $10,000 you received tax free as a loan...

Doesn't your scenario leave out the $10,000 loan that you didn't pay taxes on? I have $0 so I take a loan of $10,000 I now have $10,000 I receive income of $50,000 that I pay taxes on I now have $60,000, but I only paid taxes on $50,000 I repay the $10,000 loan with $100 interest I now have $49,900 and I paid taxes on $50,000 When I withdraw that $10,100, I will be taxed twice on $100, and once on $10,000

They count. Just like a participant who used to be eligible but is now excluded counts as a participant if there is an account balance. I can't give you a cite but I know that Janice's book used to point out that such a participant is not included as an active participant in the line by line section. Maybe that is what you remember?

I agree with Mike. They do NOT count for testing until they meet eligibility. The DO count as a participant for 5500 purposes (but not as an active participant)

You are assuming that there is enough comp to max out using just profit sharing, that is often not the case. For many of these small companies, you don't have enough comp to get to $56K as a profit sharing contribution, but you can get to $38K and max out at $56K with the $18K deferral.

Oh I agree with you, I just didn't see the rush in getting an EZ filed now.

Or just wait until the 2018 EZ is released?

They did, ASPPA replaced it with an "ask the experts" panel.

And miss out on discussions like "The Rocky Mountain MEP" from last year? Trademark pending btw...

Thanks ETA!

Thanks CuseFan. Neither document will automatically cover the employees of the other company of the controlled group. I don't know why I was second guessing myself this morning, so thank you for clarifying it for me.