SSRRS

A Takeover 401k Plan. The plan has 1) deferrals, 2) safe harbor, and 3) PS contributions. The deferrals and safe harbor are of course 100% immediate vesting. The PS contributions are 100% immediate vesting as well, (they are used to offset the DB Plan and only the vested PS balance can be used to offset the DB). Each participant has one total balance at year end and each participant's balance is not allocated between the three money types (deferrals, safe harbor, and PS contributions). Hardship distributions are not allowed in this plan and in service distributions after retirement age are allowed for all three money types. Distributions are made after a terminated participant requests payment for all three money types. Question: Since all three money types have 100% immediate vesting and all share the same specs listed above, is it ok, that each participant's balance is shown as one total balance and is not broken down per money type? Thank you in advance for any insights on this matter.

Thank you, Bird. Yes, the mingling of personal and plan investments is quite common.

Thank you very much. Once an employee who was working 1,000 hours each year, entered the plan, then even if down the line his hours drop under 1,000 he will still be eligible (since he is in the plan already- the under 1,000 hours will not make the employee an otherwise excludable). Is this case different, since the employee terminated (as opposed to an active employee who's hours went down)? Thank you.

Hi, Thank you all , as always, for all the insights. I have seen those that have stated on this forum that an EZ Filer that answers yes to having participant loans is a flag. On the 5500 -schedule I there is a question if the plan held a part of the assets in real estate. If you answer yes to this question, is this a flag as well. And if this is indeed a flag, is it advisable to stay away from investing (DB Plan assets) in real estate to avoid this (even though clearly legal to invest a portion of the assets in Real Estate-with diversification, less than 20% of the assets etc.). Thank you,

Hi, Thank you, as always, for all of your help and insights. May we all be safe. A DB Plan has a 1,000 hour requirement to enter plan and to be eligible to accrue a benefit for the respective year. However, once an employee enters the plan, even if his annual hours of service dips below 1,000 he will still be eligible (although won't earn additional vesting, since only vests an additional 20% per year that had 1,000 hours of service).Question : What If a participant in a DB Plan terminates in middle of the year with 800 hours, will he accrue a benefit for this final year? Thank you.

It appears, that if a plan that is eligible to file an EZ, elected to file an SF, then if nothing is filed the next year, they would be delinquent for not filing. However, if in the second year, the plan switched and filed an EZ, then the plan in the second year became an EZ filer. And an EZ filer does not have to file if the assets (of all plans) are below 250K. It's always good to remember, as has been pointed out on this forum by others in the past, that although an EZ filer does not have to file if the assets are below 250k, however, the statute of limitations does not start if the firm was not filed.

Effen, thank you. You are correct, he will keep the plan open. His main goal is to at least have most of his benefit in an IRA, while buying time to come up with a solution for the excess assets. He will remain in the plan as a participant with a small residual accrued benefit that he will take RMDs from annually. He will elect a Joint & Survivor -non spouse - on his remaining benefit in the plan.

Hi, A owner only DB Plan (owner and wife) is overfunded. He was taking RMD past few years based on Accrued Benefit times 12 (meaning did not elect a particular benefit ie J&S or Years Certain etc.-- this has been discussed on this forum in the past as a method for an RMD for an active participant). He retired now and wants to terminate and rollover into two IRA. The issue of course is that the plan is overfunded. To avoid any reversion and excise tax he will keep the plan open and elect a partial lump sum distribution and roll 80% of his benefit into an IRA. The remaining 20% of his Accrued Benefit will remain in the plan. Is this a feasible option? (by opting for a partial lump sum he is not changing his original election since he never made an election until now, rather he was taking RMDs. In addition, even if this considered a change of benefit election, since he now retired and has a change in status, the change in status should allow for a new benefit election to be made). Thank you for any insights and thoughts on this matter. May we all be safe always.

Thank you AndyH.

Thank you very much, Retired, but still reading and FPGuy. Very helpful and of course very impressive.

ErnieG, than you very much! Your knowledge and clear way of writing, is much appreciated,

Hi, May everyone be well and safe. Based on the incidental death benefit rules, a life insurance policy cannot be held beyond retirement of the employee. If an employee is still active, yet is beyond 62 and is taking in service distributions, must the policy on this employee be distributed/converted to cash value etc. as well? In addition is there a difference if the one taking the in service distributions is an owner as opposed to an employee? Thank you for any insights on this matter.

Thank you very much.

After bringing up the open invoices, the following is what we received in response: I’ve been authorized to arrange for payment of the outstanding invoices and obtain the information we need. Please resend your invoices, and ........will pay 50% of the outstanding amounts immediately. When I’ve been provided the following:1. Your (last two) actuarial valuations2. Calculation of each participants benefits due3. Any RMD calculations (for past two years)......... will remit the balance.

Thank you, Effen. The following sentence that you pointed out helps alot. " The Actuary shall not refuse to consult or cooperate with the prospective new or additional actuary based upon unresolved compensation issues with the Principal unless such refusal is in accordance with a pre-existing agreement with the Principal. "

Thank you very much. I was under the impression that information must be given regardless and fees have to be worked out separately. The above sounds a lot better to swallow.

Thank you very much Bill.Presson, David Rigby, shERPA, and Effen for your insights and time. As usual, your knowledge is much apprec iated. It seems that the new actuary is not aware of the outstanding fees.

Hi, A DB client left with owing four years or so in annual admin. fees. (long time client, who kept saying each year, come on, after all these years you don't trust that I will pay you?). The new actuary is requesting a copy of the last valution report. While aware that per the code of professional conduct files cannot be held back due to outstanding fees, however, does this apply even to a val report that was previously provided to the client. Meaning is it permitted to say that being that this was previously provided to the client, if the client requests an additional copy he will first have to pay the outstanding fees ? Thank you.

Thank you David for your advice and time. As usual, you managed to set things straight in a clear concise way. Sometimes I do get bogged down, getting to analytical. Thank you, and may you be safe.

Hi, A DB Plan has been owner only (owner and wife) for approx. past ten years, but kept filing PBGC until now (showing only 2 participants each year). This year did not file and when contacted by PBGC it was explained to the agent that the plan is owner only since 2008 and a copy of the 5500 EZ was given to the PBGC (showing that it's an owner only plan). The agent agreed that the plan.is not covered anymore and emailed a convoluted form to fill out so that the plan can be removed from PBGC records. 1. The form has a box to check to confirm that a copy of plan document is being included with the form...why do they want/need a copy of the plan document for this purpose?..2. They ask that if the spouse of the owner is a plan participant, was she an employee, director, or manager? Why is this relevant, doesn't attribution say that the spouse is an owner as well? This is an INC. There is an attribution exception of non involvement. This means that the spouse has no involvement in the other spouse's business. However, in this case, since the wife is on the plan that means she is involved in her husband's business, as you can only be a plan participant if you are an employee of the sponsor. 3. So attribution should say that the wife is an owner? Thank you for any insight or ideas in regard to the best way to proceed with this.

Thank you very much Jakyasar, C.B. Zeller, and RatherBeGolfing. I hope you all , and everyone as well, stays safe.

Since Many/all are working remotely will the fye 6/19 5500s that were on extension until 4/15 be included in the new extension? It's hard to understand if it is not further extended. Thank you.

Hi, The ppp loans cover retirement plan contributions. While it is highly unlikely, does this by any chance include DB Plan contributions? Thank you.

Thank you Lou S. and Mike Preston for the detailed and informative information. I hope you all are/will stay ok and safe.

Hi, Is this allowed (take DB RMD based on account balance method) only if the RMD is his first, or is it allowed even in a case where it is not the First year that he must take an RMD? Meaning he is terminating the DB plan (owner only plan) and taking a lump sum rollover to an.IRA. Can he take his RMD prior to rolling to the IRA based on the DC method even though he has taken in previous years an RMD in the normal DB annuity form? Thank you.