Luke Bailey

Peter, I have come across one. Goldman Sachs's brand new Marcus-branded IRA. For a Texas resident it says you have to name your spouse unless you get spousal consent. They say to call them if you need help with that. Note that I live in Texas and I think (but have not researched in 20 years) that the actual rule is that you can name anyone you want, because the property is under your control, but up to half may be community property and therefore a state court could, after death, enforce the community property interest. Presumably they're trying to eliminate legal fees and uncertainty for all parties be requiring this to be dealt with up front. And of course it's hard to get in all the good stuff on a form that someone's filling out on an iPhone app, although the obvious advantage of the app is that it knows where you live and can present you with a tailored set of rules.

I should have mentioned above that there is a bankruptcy preference for unpaid wages. It's a certain percentage, I recall, capped at a dollar amount, of employee wages. Usually that is used up by, ready for it, unpaid wages, but it can also apply to delinquent retirement contributions if there is any amount left over.

I have not read all of the above, and am dense to begin with, but how did that get in there? What employment?

It's an extreme situation if the sole individual involved with the company has NO W-2 earnings or SE income. But in such a case, the plan would also seem to violate the exclusive benefit requirement that it be for employees, included SEIs. The individual could always go to work briefly for a big anonymous company (e.g., sign on as a part-time Walmarter) and roll his IRA into its plan.

I say the teachers better not move to another state with an income tax after they retire.

If there are any assets in estate, Bankruptcy Court might allow payment. If not, bankruptcy trustee probably needs to file VCP.

You're very welcome, NonProfit GC. Good luck!

Presumably this is a self-directed plan. I think the loan could be recourse against the account and other assets of the account could be pledged. But completely agree that usually completely impractical. Some lenders that specialize in this will do for IRAs, but with a qualified plan with multiple participants, even self-directed, the paperwork would be novel and complicated, scaring off most lenders, if not the plan sponsor.

514(c)(9).

NonProfit GC, IRC sec. 408(k)(6)(E) says a governmental or tax-exempt employer cannot "maintain" a SARSEP. The IRS usually interprets "maintain" as applying to plans in the present tense, on a continuing basis, not to simply the time of formation.

Belgarath, I am only going to give you moral support here, but it would seem to me you could exclude. "Of" is a little elastic, not like "sponsored exclusively by." Also, I think a favorable answer to your question is implied by IRC 413(b)(3), in that how can the plan be for the exclusive benefit of the employer's employees if it is not a plan of (at least partially) the employer? I have never encountered this before either, or thought about it, but it looks like the reg does not give you a way out, and it probably can't because the Code does not contain a union exception either.

OK. So grantor trust ignored for tax purposes. The owner just wants to avoid probate on the business if he or she dies.

You also have his or her last address, right? Maybe whom he or she designated as a beneficiary? Job description. It's a big data world.

Definitely, unless it is a grantor trust disregarded for tax purposes. Otherwise, for the reasons stated in the questions above, the question being asked does not seem to make sense.

Purplemandinga, is this a multiemployer DC or DB? I have never encountered a DC multiemployer in practice. If a DB, then although I have not researched I would guess that moving to multiple employer structure, if it's even possible for a DB, would be considered a termination. Is the plan fully funded on a termination basis?

coleboy, of course a review of the documents and other facts would be necessary to provide actual assistance, but based on what you have briefly stated above and treating it superficially as a hypothetical, it would appear that the company in which the Dr. has only 50% ownership is not a member of the CG. Bill Presson's response only addresses the CG.

I think by "research SSNs" Kyle means come up with some SSN candidates based on the info you do have, BG5150.

What makes you think the NUA rules only apply to company stock that is not publicly traded, Dobber?

The PBGC missing participant program is not an option because no SSNs? The MP-200 and its instructions seem to assume you have an SSN, but they don't specifically say you can't use if you don't have. You might call them.

Peter, that survey is great. They're all over the place. Thanks.

Scuba 401, the question I always ask myself is, "If this person went to the dark side, could he or she take any funds and catch a flight to a South American country?" If so, they're definitely handling plan assets. It sounds like in this situation the person could, although I may have misread your facts.

Whatever you do, act fast and consider what the impact is on death benefits if there are any family member she cares about.

TPA Bob, of course I have not reviewed documents or facts, so I need to treat your very brief, conclusory description as a hypothetical. That said, I would say "Yes," either that or VCP.

Not if you can be reimbursed by the FSA, as spouse. This is a classic problem, i.e. the spouse's FSA provides first dollar coverage, inadvertently. Most employers by now have HSA-friendly options, however, in their FSAs, whereby the spouse can elect that the money in the FSA can only be used by family members not covered by the HSA. You need to check if your spouse's plan has that option and if your spouse selected it.

What BG5150 said.