CuseFan

Look at the following. Don't forget about the geographically dispersed multiple parcels requirement. And the property must be leased back to the employer or an affiliate (so contributing the owner's villa on the French Riviera probably doesn't work). Finally, any such contribution of property must be above and beyond the ERISA MRC, which must be made in cash. https://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/irm_04-072-011-cont01.html 4.72.11.3.7.2.1 (12-17-2015) Qualifying Employer Real Property 1.Employer real property is defined in ERISA 407(d)(2) as real property (and related personal property) a plan owns and leases to an employer (or an affiliate of the employer) of employees covered by the plan. Note: This term is often confused with property that an employer owns. Employer owned property leased to the plan is not exempt under ERISA provisions for the acquisition and holding of qualifying employer real property. Example: Company C reports on its defined contribution plan’s Form 5500 that it owns employer real property or employer securities valued at $200,000. Its statement of assets, however, lists no real estate holdings and corporate debt and lists equity instruments valued at $25,000. This discrepancy may indicate that the filer is confusing employer real property (i.e., property owned by the plan and leased to the employer) with property owned by the employer and leased to the plan. 2. Qualifying employer real property is defined in ERISA 407(d)(4) as parcels of employer real property that: Are geographically dispersed (there must be more than one property). Are suitable (or adaptable without significant cost) for more than one use (even if such property is leased to only one lessee). Insofar as their acquisition or retention is concerned, comply with ERISA, Title I, Subtitle B, Part 4 other than the diversification requirements. In other words, the investment in employer real property is prudent, in accordance with plan documents, etc., but not necessarily sufficiently diversified so as to minimize the risk of large losses to the plan.

Some volume submitter language which essentially repeats DOL hour of service requirements: (ii) an hour for which an Employee is directly or indirectly paid, or entitled to payment, on account of a period during which no duties are performed is not required to be credited to the Employee if such payment is made or due under a plan maintained solely for the purpose of complying with applicable worker's compensation, or unemployment compensation or disability insurance laws So, do not count comp, do not count hours, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

yes, their distribution timing requirements are generally governed by IRC Section 409A

this goes back to previous discussions in this space on having trust EINs, which would be the proper EINs under which 1099 and 945 reporting should be done and which would, if in place, make your question moot as their would be two separate trust EINs and two separate filings. in this case, if using just the sponsor's EIN you should file one 945 that covers the 1099s from both plans.

an 1800 distribution isn't going to mess up anyone's social security retirement benefit unless she has so much income it pushes her into a higher bracket where more of the benefit is taxed. don't violate plan terms - pay lump sum or pay nothing - she can roll to ira and make her own installments if necessary.

If the purchase by B assumed sponsorship of A's SH plan, why not simply operate separately for the remainder of the year and use transition rules for coverage and NDT? Then merge plans at 1/1 with the surviving plan being the one with the provisions that aligns with the company's objectives. If B did not take on sponsorship then A's plan should be terminated.

Cents is correct. Vesting does not impact the RBD or subsequent RMD payment due dates, only the amount that is subject to RMD.

Congrats and good luck. So if you contribute 2% of pay the company gives you 4% of pay (2% x 200%). If you do another 4% (so 6% total), you get another 2% of pay (4% x 50%). So if you do 6% of pay, which you should, you essentially get another 6% of pay from the company - a great deal that you should take advantage of. Finally, and I'm assuming you are fairly young, if your plan has a Roth 401(k) feature and matches Roth deferrals as well, you should make your 401(k) deferrals on that basis. You do not get a tax deduction for Roth (not pre-tax) but your total payout from that account type - including ALL FUTURE INVESTMENT EARNINGS - will be TAX FREE, and don't be too conservative on your investments as time is on your side.

also, i think the in-kind contributions had to be above and beyond the ERISA MRC, which was still required in cash

Calavera has it nailed - deja vu - didn't this just come up a day or two ago?

You have two separate applications here: (1) the definition of eligible employee in the plan document and (2) how you do your coverage and nondiscrimination testing. Say you have a M&A transaction and the definition of eligible employee is simply any employee of the employer within the control group. The transition rule doesn't help you and those new/merged employees are now eligible (and maybe immediately if prior service was required to be counted), which is why that language now shows up in most (all?) preapproved documents. You can choose whether or not to apply the transition rule in your testing, but you have no after-the-fact option on the documents definition of eligible employee.

Be cognizant of the fly in the ointment - if you have a relatively small plan and have to buy annuities, especially deferred annuities, and doubly especially if you have a general lump sum option, it is EXTREMELY CHALLENGING to find an annuity provider (recent discussions in this forum will attest to that). And be aware of 45 day advance notice requirement on annuity purchase.

Tom, is that your song or did you "borrow" from Derrin Watson, it sounds like one of his?

i have a hard time believing that would be ok with respect to the SH contributions as it directly affects them, and that is what IRS wants to prohibit. i don't see an issue if the comp def was changed just for the PS, as it's these non-SH provision amendments they've softened up to.

or you can take a lump sum from the DB at RMD time and calculate the RMD in the same fashion. by doing early you avoid having to do the two piece payout, R/O eligible and non-R/O eligible RMD

My client's plan is a 403(b) and not a MP, they used to have both merged MP into 403(b). i do occasional ad hoc consulting for them, the plan is with TIAA-CREF.

I have a tax-exempt client with a similar type of plan. Employees must make 5% pre-tax salary deferrals as a condition of employment. Interestingly, as these are not elective deferrals - they are non-elective deferrals - they do not count toward the 402(g) limit.

maybe it's ok, but i just remember taking over a nightmare plan with a number of doctors who each had multiple policies with loans, to the individual docs, that were in excess of limits and sporadically paid - i ran screaming after came to and swore at the colleague who brought the plan in. that same plan owned the building the docs practiced in and leased it back to them. oh the good old days!

yes, that is very odd. the NTIP used to get included but then the IRS said it didn't need to be, but it sounds like they want it again. at first I thought they wanted some statement if the NTIP wasn't provided, but the instructions are a bit murky. maybe if you are the type of plan that doesn't need a NTIP you attach a statement to that effect. however, the instructions also say that applications checked "no" will get returned. so if you answer no and include a statement - like this is an owner-only plan - will it get returned? and as the IRS continues to be resource constrained we can expect more of the same. i had been checking yes and not including the NTIP, but I can't say I've used the Jan 2017 revised form yet.

exactamundo - that trick only really works with solo plans

Agree with all, but back to the real estate - be careful, the plan must provide for in-kind distributions AND they must be offered to everyone. All it takes is one disgruntled smart-@ss employee or former employee participant to demand his/her slice of that property. Of course nothing like that ever happens in real life (which if you believe, I've got bridge to sell to someone's profit sharing plan!).

nope, you are correct

i would question how policy was "rolled" into the plan and yes, the $90k loan is an issue. Personally, I don't like in-plan insurance and prefer to let those who do take care of such plans.

Agreed - i believe you must enter into the agreement at least one year prior to retirement or you do not get the advantages of 3121, so I think you're stuck with pay as go full FICA and Medicare. I agree with X that 409A is also in play, which could impact the ability to modify payments, if desired.

that trend will certainly continue. good luck EastCoast