CuseFan

By "after-tax value" do you mean from voluntary after-tax contributions, Roth contributions, or net unrealized appreciation? Is the employer stock fund designated as ESOP?

RE Agents, if working solely on commission under the supervision of an agency and not paid with respect to hours worked, are definitely considered self employed and may establish retirement plans with respect to that income.

If it's an "in-service" distribution and RMD then I assume it's an owner, which would mean the high income phase out for charitable contribution deductions does come into play. As retirement plans must pay RMDs before rollover distributions, there is no way to circumvent.

Not sure about the implications for a governmental plan, but I'm of the opinion that you should always track different money types separately at all times, regardless - and whether or not there are different restrictions on the different types. My thought, w/o research, is that there is no reason or basis upon which you can now allow in-service w/d on the MP dollars, the merger shouldn't change anything in that regard.

If the plan terminates then it looks like a blatant attempt to circumvent the nondiscrimination rules. if he amends the plan to increase his benefit/account balance up to 415 limit (or asset balance) in 2018, assuming no other eligible employees, then maybe that works since any new hires at the new practice/location would not be eligible until 2019.

This illustrates the difference between a vendor and a service provider. The former simply provides a product according to its delivery system while the latter delivers service that provides value to the customer. Much easier to fire a vendor than a service provider.

Ownership, if I'm not mistaken, is also determined by options as well, so if you have 3 equal (1/3) partners, each of which has the option (via partnership agreement) to buy 50% of an exiting partner's share then you actually have three majority owners. I've seen this done.

I'm not up on all the SH intricacies, but if you are a "maybe SH" then you're saying that none of the mid-year amendment prohibitions apply unless and until you actually do your SH amendment? Because if the union exclusion is not already in the plan then an amendment to add it would be an amendment that would reduce/limit SH coverage and otherwise be precluded if those restrictions did still apply.

From IRS website - this should tell you all you need to know. Governmental Plans Can Elect Second Cycle E Revenue Procedure 2012-50 allows sponsors of individually designed governmental plans to elect Cycle E (instead of Cycle C) as their second remedial amendment cycle. Cycle E election Sponsors can elect Cycle E as their second remedial amendment cycle by filing a determination letter application for their plan between February 1, 2015 and January 31, 2016, instead of the second Cycle C submission period (February 1, 2013 - January 31, 2014). Sponsors don’t need to notify the IRS of their intent to make this election. Sponsors who elect Cycle E must: amend their plans for all applicable items on the second Cycle E Cumulative List, and timely adopt any interim amendments required for governmental plans during the second Cycles C and D. Sponsors electing Cycle E as their second remedial amendment cycle will have their plans': subsequent remedial amendment cycles revert to Cycle C (for example, the plan’s third remedial amendment cycle will be the third Cycle C), and second cycle determination letter expire at the end of the third Cycle C submission period (January 31, 2019). Prior determination letter Determination letters for individually designed governmental plans issued after the initial remedial amendment cycle expire on January 31, 2014 (at the end of the second Cycle C), even if the sponsor elected the first Cycle E as the plan’s initial cycle. However, the IRS will extend the expiration dates on these letters to January 31, 2016 (the end of second Cycle E), if the sponsor elects Cycle E as the plan’s second remedial amendment cycle.

Paying retro to age 62 would be an RASD and unless the plan allows would be an operational defect. I agree there are some compliance issues here and would explore settlement outside the plan, but would also suggest counsel.

Luke is correct. if a required distribution from a DB plan - whether a cash out or RMD - is not paid when it was required by plan terms to be paid, then it must be corrected by making the payment plus interest. Some plans true involuntary cash out threshold is actually at $1,000 because they don't want to deal with default/auto rollover - so check for that language. However, if you have PVABs under $1,000, this doesn't help. Plans administratively have "wiggle room" as was noted, but maybe to the end of the PY or first quarter of subsequent year, but certainly not 5 years.

Agreed - it is tax year that is relevant, not the year of deposit.

If she has the money to pay it off she can just roll her balance (after loan offset) directly to IRA and then send check for loan balance to the IRA with documentation that it's for the loan offset. I did exactly that myself 14 years ago without a problem. This can be quicker than waiting for a payoff amount, sending in payoff, waiting for it to post and then requesting total payout, but it is more complicated - for the participant and IRA custodian - not the plan or the RK.

It is aggressive, but I have seen designs that exclude people on the basis of compensation - whether an exclusion of those earning above or below a certain amount.

I think you got it nailed. I assume this is a 403(b) if the participant was able to pay directly to the "vendor". The vendor should also be scolded for accepting an impermissible contribution outside of the payroll process.

If you have some sort of plan document that wraps it all together, which is what I assume you mean by "megawrap", then yes, you can file as one H&W plan on one 5500 with whatever number of Sched A's you need.

yes, absolutely, if cross-testing any part of the plan then everyone must get gateway.

Sorry, my comment was more tongue in cheek slam against the attorneys reaping millions by getting plan participants, individually, tens and hundreds rather than government waste. Clearly that sort of discussion can last us the rest of the year. Or maybe it's all a government conspiracy to fund extraterrestrial research. As they said in Independence Day: You didn't think they actually spent ten thousand dollars for a hammer and thirty thousand for a toilet seat, did you?

It is funny that "new" comparability has been around since 1991. Also, for your testing, don't forget about restructuring. if you can pass rate groups at 70% by cross-testing the owner with the youngest NHCEs and testing the other HCE (spouse I assume because high deferral?) on a contributions basis with the oldest NHCEs, then the ABT% doesn't matter.

So what's the over/under on how long until one of the aggressive excessive fee attorneys brings a class action lawsuit against the government on behalf of tax payers for this failed costly program?

You don't HAVE to cross-test. A new comp formula should allow you to allocate in whatever fashion (that satisfies 401(a)(4))) the employer desires. So you can allocate in a manner that satisfies 401(l) - integrated - and do your testing on contributions rather than cross-test on benefits. Technically, you would have to test, but if your actual allocation was in the same manner as a design based safe harbor, I wouldn't even bother. Say you had a NCPS formula but allocated X% of pay across the board - formula is not safe harbor but your allocation is.

I agree completely, but I also see some questions that have me thinking "seriously"? i know not everyone on here is a benefit professional but I am also a firm believer that if you research your own question and find the answer that you remember/learn more rather than simply asking someone else, again and again. Although some of the crazy issues/questions that come up here are very entertaining, so are these non-benefit crazy discussions - keep 'em coming!

Especially if the form of payment was 50% J&S and the post-death payments should have been halved. I would ask a tax professional rather than a retirement plan professional.

If only people Googled their compliance questions as much we might limit that sort of bothersome minutia and be able to have many more of these discussions!

how can the destruction of disco records be a bad thing?