Search the Community

Many retirement plans, in provisions for an involuntary distribution needed for a plan to meet a tax-qualification condition under Internal Revenue Code § 401(a)(9), define that required beginning date (with some variations) as April 1 of the calendar year following the later of the calendar year in which the participant attains age 70½, or the calendar year in which the participant retires. One suspects many plan sponsors, if not falling in with a form document, might have preferred to provide the latest age or date that does not tax-disqualify the plan for failing to meet § 401(a)(9). For IRS-preapproved documents of the cycle now or soon to be presented to users: Do some change 70½ to 72? Do some avoid stating a specific age, instead referring to § 401(a)(9)(C)? Or does a document not change anything about this point?

DB plan's pre-retirement death benefit for unmarried participant who dies with vested benefit prior to age 60 is life annuity payable to beneficiary starting when participant would have attained age 60. How does this work with 401(a)(9) regs that require the life annuity to the beneficiary to begin within year of death (no lump sum available)? If the participant dies at age 50, by when does the non-spouse beneficiary have to take the benefit?

A profit-sharing retirement plan provides as its only form of distribution, whether for a retirement distribution or a death distribution, one single-sum payment of the whole account balance. A participant dies before receiving a distribution. The participant, with her spouse’s consent to meet ERISA § 205, had made and delivered to the plan’s administrator a beneficiary designation: “ABC Bank, N.A.” The plan’s administrator receives a claim signed by a person identified as a trust officer of ABC Bank. The administrator does not doubt the claim’s authenticity or genuineness. The claim asks the plan to pay the bank (and does not request that the plan treat the payment, or any portion of it, as a rollover). In the envelope with the claim form is a copy of a 13-page trust document and a transmittal letter that says: “Following 26 C.F.R. § 1.409(a)(9)-4, Q&A-6(b)(2), we enclose a copy of the participant’s trust document.” The plan’s administrator believes it need not read the participant’s trust document. Rather, it believes its duty is limited to satisfying itself that the claimant is the beneficiary the participant named (and directing the plan’s trustee to pay that beneficiary). The plan’s administrator is thinking of sending ABC Bank a letter informing the bank that the administrator did not read the trust document the bank furnished, and promptly destroyed it. BenefitsLink mavens: Must the retirement plan’s administrator read the participant’s trust document? Or is it okay to ignore it? Assuming the administrator had no duty to read, and did not read, the participant’s trust document, must the administrator keep the document in the plan’s records? Or is it proper not to keep a writing the administrator never considered? About the proposed letter to inform the bank that the administrator did not read, and no longer can read, the participant’s trust document, is this a good idea, or a bad idea? On all three questions, what is the reasoning for your answer?

Does anyone have a suggestion for an expert witness regarding a minimum distribution under 401(a)(9) from a DB plan? On party says 401(a)(9) would be violated if the amount argued by the other party is actually paid.

Active Participant will attain 70 1/2 in 2014. He currently owns more than 5% of profits interest, but he will reduce his ownership by 12/31/13 to not more than 5%. Plan Year = Calendar Year. No RMD for 2014 if he continues working. Suppose in 2015 he continues working, but increases ownership to greater than 5%? Literal reading of 1.401(a)(9)-2 Q&A 2© says no required minimum distribution as long as he continues to work because the ownership test is done in the year of attaining 70 1/2. "© For purposes of section 401(a)(9), a 5-percent owner is an employee who is a 5-percent owner (as defined in section 416) with respect to the plan year ending in the calendar year in which the employee attains age 70 1/2. " Agree that if he isn't a 5% owner in 2014, becoming a 5% owner later won't matter for RMD purposes?