K-t-F Posted June 28, 2022 Share Posted June 28, 2022 I have a client I have been working with for many years. He started with a Keogh opened at Paine Webber. In 2007 I restated the plan into my independent doc (ftWilliam). Back when he adopted the plan typically the account was opened using the sponsor's EIN. I have advocated forever that a plan needs it's own EIN. I obtained one (sadly I can not find the paperwork that assigned an EIN for the plan). Now, the client is switching financial advisors. The funds are going to be transferred "trustee-to-trustee" to the new financial institution. I provided the EIN I had in my records only to find out that the existing financial institution has a different EIN and so the funds would not transfer because the EINs are different. I understand that. Here's my question... the existing financial institution produced an EIN assignment (a copy of the SS-4). It goes back to 2006. The client has never taken a distribution and as you know the EIN on the 5500 is the sponsor's EIN. - Is this original EIN defunct at this point ? I mean, after so long with no activity don't they die? - or, should we use it for the transfer because his existing accounts are registered with it? I think that's enough info. Its not easy being green Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bird Posted June 28, 2022 Share Posted June 28, 2022 The IRS will have deactivated the TIN it issued in 2006. But that's not the problem here; the problem is that the two financial institutions have two different numbers and can't ACAT the assets. I'd probably go with the one that the financial institution has from 2006, and worry about re-activating it later. Deactivated doesn't mean it doesn't exist or has been assigned somewhere else, although I suppose eventually they recycle numbers. See link below to reactivate. https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/how-to-obtain-or-re-establish-an-ein-for-a-retirement-plan-trust Nate S 1 Ed Snyder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate S Posted June 28, 2022 Share Posted June 28, 2022 Otherwise, can we all acknowledge that Keogh's sunset in 1984 (TEFRA '82), were laid to rest in 2000 (IRS Publication 560), and officially expired in 2002 (EGTRRA '01)? This is in some ways worse than the "Solo-401(k)" naming convention. Bill Presson, CuseFan, Bri and 1 other 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CuseFan Posted June 28, 2022 Share Posted June 28, 2022 Allow some older practitioners their nostalgia! Bill Presson 1 Kenneth M. Prell, CEBS, ERPA Vice President, BPAS Actuarial & Pension Services kprell@bpas.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Presson Posted June 29, 2022 Share Posted June 29, 2022 I always assumed @K-t-F meant "Keogh to Four 0 1 k" 😁 CuseFan and Luke Bailey 2 William C. Presson, ERPA, QPA, QKA bill.presson@gmail.com C 205.994.4070 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-t-F Posted June 29, 2022 Author Share Posted June 29, 2022 10 minutes ago, Bill Presson said: I always assumed @K-t-F meant "Keogh to Four 0 1 k" Sadly I started my pension career in '83, back in the day when we used "PENTABS" for anyone who remembers that system from Santa Barbara CA. Back when there were no message boards... no internet to research and ask questions, just the CCH books with their tracing paper pages (hated pulling out pages and adding replacements when rules/laws changed). I know the answers... it's just reassuring when I ask you fine people and your responses confirm what I already knew. So... cheers to you all! 🍺 To stay on topic... yes Bird... it's all about moving the assets. I told the new financial advisor to use the EIN on file for a seamless move. I'll take a look at that link. Appreciate it. Bill Presson 1 Its not easy being green Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Gulia Posted June 29, 2022 Share Posted June 29, 2022 This guy who began work with the Retirement Equity Act of 1984 remembers the pilot episode of television series L.A. Law. Norman Chaney, one of the firm’s founding partners—the one who did tax, dies at his desk, with his hand in a ring binder. That episode aired about five weeks before the enactment of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, Congress’s Act that rewrote and renamed the Internal Revenue Code. Later, CCH made several before-1986 publications. I still use my CCH Pension Plan Guide bound volumes for “Pre-1986 IRS Revenue Rulings” and “Pre-1986 IRS Tax Releases Other Than Revenue Rulings”. Peter Gulia PC Fiduciary Guidance Counsel Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 215-732-1552 Peter@FiduciaryGuidanceCounsel.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CuseFan Posted June 29, 2022 Share Posted June 29, 2022 1984, so I came in as most of TEFRA became effective (right? passed in 82, effective in 84), have all the legal alphabet soup under my belt, except of course for ERISA. Over the years, the one thing I noticed was the increasing creativity of the law acronyms, starting with COBRA, but certainly with CARES, SECURE and now EARN, RISE and SHINE - someone gets paid good money to think these up! Finally, an old timer's trivia question - who remembers Section 83, what is was and what ultimately happened to it. Clue - maybe the biggest time waster for employee benefits professionals in the last 40 years. Bill Presson 1 Kenneth M. Prell, CEBS, ERPA Vice President, BPAS Actuarial & Pension Services kprell@bpas.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Presson Posted June 29, 2022 Share Posted June 29, 2022 39 minutes ago, CuseFan said: 1984, so I came in as most of TEFRA became effective (right? passed in 82, effective in 84), have all the legal alphabet soup under my belt, except of course for ERISA. Over the years, the one thing I noticed was the increasing creativity of the law acronyms, starting with COBRA, but certainly with CARES, SECURE and now EARN, RISE and SHINE - someone gets paid good money to think these up! Finally, an old timer's trivia question - who remembers Section 83, what is was and what ultimately happened to it. Clue - maybe the biggest time waster for employee benefits professionals in the last 40 years. Do you mean Section 89? Lots of people bet a lot of time and money on that. Dave Baker and CuseFan 2 William C. Presson, ERPA, QPA, QKA bill.presson@gmail.com C 205.994.4070 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CuseFan Posted June 29, 2022 Share Posted June 29, 2022 Yes, sorry, I was questioning myself after I sent - it was so long ago that I even forgot the (ir)relevant Code Section. At least I didn't go Corporal Klinger and say Section 8! (Yeah, I know, a lot of you youngsters are asking who's Corporal Klinger?) Answer for curious minds, and this is based on the memory of 60-year-old so cut me some slack, Section 89 was essentially the 401(a)(4) version of regulations for health and welfare plans, it came out well in advance of its effective date, and it had employers and practitioners spending boatloads of time preparing and determining how to test if plans were compliant or how they could make them compliant - but was ultimately repealed either just before or after it was to take effect, rewarding all the procrastinators who decided to be reactive rather than proactive. I was an underling at the time but will let you guess which side of the Section 89 fence we were on! R Griffith and Bill Presson 1 1 Kenneth M. Prell, CEBS, ERPA Vice President, BPAS Actuarial & Pension Services kprell@bpas.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now