CuseFan

Yes. However, a fully subsidized unreduced early retirement benefit is most likely in place to get people to actually retire early, so allowing someone to take in-service of such would seem counter-productive.

DB plan (takeover, data issues) requires QJSA notice given prior to NRD, and if election is not made or a written election to defer (no later than RBD) is not made, then benefits are required to commence in the normal form as of the 60th day of the year following the year in which NRD occurs. Person's NRD was 7/1. Takeover data issues delayed calculation of benefit and delivery of QJSA forms until after 7/1. There is no RASD in the plan. Do we prepare QJSA for 9/1 ASD with two month actuarial increase or do a "corrective" QJSA back to 7/1?

Not required yet, but highly encouraged and will be required in the future. it's so easy there's no reason not to do it that way. Top Hat Plan Statement Plan administrators of "top hat" plans can use this web page to electronically file the statement described in section 2520.104-23 of the Department of Labor's regulations. Top hat plans are unfunded or insured pension plans for a select group of management or highly compensated employees. The Department recently published a proposed regulation that would make it mandatory to electronically file the statement. In the interim, plan administrators of top hat plans are encouraged to file plan statements using this electronic system. Plan administrators who use this electronic filing system will have satisfied the filing requirements under the current regulation. To go directly to the statement, click on the link "Proceed to File Your Top Hat Plan Statement" below.

yes, that works

agreed and thanks for the clarification

if it was a distribution in conjunction with the termination then the participant should be included. If February was the termination date (and not distribution timing for earlier plan termination date) then this precluded the termination and the person need not share in excess allocation. HOWEVER, allocating on PVAB is not automatically nondiscriminatory. If formula was integrated then such an allocation could violate 401(l). If the plan was a CBP that greatly favored owners by leveraging a PSP with combined testing, allocating excess CB assets on account balances will likely need to be general tested and not likely to pass w/o combining with PSP - which may not be possible because they no longer have the same PY. If you had a safe harbor non-integrated design then allocating on PVABs should be nondiscriminatory.

exactly, so the key date is the actual merger date as specified in corporate resolutions, plan amendments, etc., which, if it was 12/1, then regardless of when assets were consolidated the plans are deemed one on 12/1 and that is the last day for A's plan and so 7/31/2017 is your unextended 5500 filing due date and deadline for any extension.

The dividends are earnings and should not be part of hardship availability, they should be tracked in their own money type and also fully vested.

We have often found that a letter explaining the SSA reporting issues, that "may be entitled" does not mean "is entitled" and that all plan liabilities were satisfied upon plan termination, which was audited by the PBGC, and their benefit was either previously distributed prior to or in conjunction with the plan termination (SOL standing for something else here). If you know the identity of the insurer you can refer them there in case an annuity was purchased. Also suggest they review their own records - bank statements, IRA statements, etc. for their prior receipt of the distribution This usually satisfies the participant, especially if the benefit is relatively small. it certainly helps if records are maintained and the courts have definitely sided with claimants if the employer did not retain sufficient records - but the goal is not to get to that point.

if eligible, how are Amish not benefiting? Did they timely execute a permitted participation waiver? They can't just say don't give me PS and the employer comply contrary to plan provisions. if they are employees and paid a wage, this is really just deferred wages - they are part of their total compensation - so how are they morally obligated to forego? (is not OASDI withheld from their pay?) It should be explained they must be included by law, I'd hope their moral beliefs include following the law of the land. Of course, this might be a "kick the can down the road" solution as you still have to get them to take the distributions if plan was set up to exclude them, that's another issue.

the only limits to which catch-up deferrals are subject are their own, nothing else

1 - almost always 2 - sometimes, if sponsor has an ERISA attorney routinely engaged (usually larger plans) 3 - rarely, at least up to mid-market

Well, everyone has five years to figure it out before the balance must be distributed under the RMD rules!

if the PS total was a specific dollar amount, say $100,000, then not only did some people get too much (because fringe was not excluded from pay), but others were shortchanged because it was a zero-sum error. If you have HCEs predominantly in the windfall group (the ones most likely with fringe benefits) but not the shortchanged group then the error was also discriminatory, which probably takes 11-g away. Agree with KC in terms of either 1) re-allocating the contribution amount correctly or 2) contributing additional amounts to the shortchanged group to make them equal. However, that could be problematic because when you look at the percentage of plan comp (fringe excluded), it could be different for many of the participants - so to what percentage do you equalize?

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.