I recently came across the ISAR or In-Service Alternative Rollover. An investment management company and another company are offering to "certify" advisors to walk clients through this process, apparently involving hiring an attorney to facilitate an in-service distribution of 100% of assets with no adverse tax consequence and continued participation in the plan while employed. Must be married and is a one-time event. According to their marketing material, "This additional legislation expanded the ERISA recognition of a plan participant's marital estate and made the ISAR transaction possible. The ISAR has technically been allowed since 1984 for plans subject to ERISA, and was first used successfully in California in the mid 1980's." Has anyone heard of this or have experience with it, or know what they are actually doing to facilitate this kind of event? I'm not asking because I would recommend it...frankly it sounds sketchy to me and would introduce at least a perception of an inherent conflict of interest for any advisor or insurance agent recommending it to a client. However, I try to stay current on industry trends and this is one I've never heard of before today.

[Advert.]

Join leading executives who manage 401(k), 403(b), 457 and TSP plans at DC East. You'll learn how other plan sponsors analyze, develop, implement and measure programs for their participants, so you can improve your own plan.

If a terminated participant who has not been paid out, is rehired part-time, wouldn't they have to get the 3% non-elective contribution, because there is no hours requirement for the SHNE? I would think so, accountant says no.

Today's BenefitsLink news links to a prepublication text of a proposed rule (to be published in tomorrow's Federal Register) that would decodify many Treasury rules. https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2018-02918.pdf Among the rules that would be "removed", some are keyed to Internal Revenue Code sections 401-412. These include 26 C.F.R. section 1.401-11 through -13; 1.401(e)-1 through -6; 1.404(a)-4 through -7 and -9; 410(b)-1; 1.412(I)(7)-1; 11.402(e)(4)(A)-1, 11.402(e)(4)(B)-1. Is the Treasury department correct in saying each of these rules no longer has any usefulness? Or is there a rule (among those proposed to be removed from the Code of Federal Regulations) that states still-useful guidance?

Sponsor has DB and SH DC plan. 2 NHCEs. HCE1 is sole owner and only Key, non-owner HCE2. Since no PS in DC Plan that plan is exempt from TH. DB document says any TH to be provided under the DB. Q1: Would the TH minimum in the DB be 2%- or 3%- of pay? Q2: If any PS contribution were to be made in the DC plan then would the answer to Q1 change? Q3: If HCE2 were excluded from DB plan would any TH be due them under DC plan if no PS made to DC? Q4: If HCE2 were excluded from DB plan would any TH be due them under DC plan if a PS were made to DC and would that TH to HCE2 be 3%- or 5% of pay?

Background: Participant worked in disqualifying employment for more than a decade while receiving pension benefit. Administrator found out and suspended benefits several years ago. During suspension (and continued DE), participant reached age such that benefits should have resumed at 75% rate, but didn't. Consequently participant has received a large overpayment, but also didn't receive 75% benefits for a several-year period during which they should have been paid. We're now trying to set things straight. Question: Must the fund repay several years' worth of unpaid 75% benefits in a lump sum, and then resume monthly reduced benefits? Or can the fund simply offset that unpaid amount against the participant's overpayment, arrive at a net overpayment, and then resume monthly reduced benefits? This is apart from any separate action the fund may take relative to the overpayment -- just want to get the resumption of benefits right.

Starting to file first form 5500EZ. Line 6a has information information about value of asset in the begin and end of year. My contribution was $20k for 2016, which I deposited in March 2017 for 2016. This is with a Fidelity-run solo plan. How will IRS know I actually deposited the $20k, considering the value of plan (including mutual funds etc.) went up by $40k in the year?

Plan at one time offered an annuity product as an investment to all. After a while, they stopped offering to participants. At the moment, the owner is the only one in the investment and he is making contributions therein. Is this a BRF issue in that he's the only one allowed in the investment? Or is it OK, because at one time it was offered to everyone and is now, for the plan, closed to new investors?

We have a 403b plan that provides a 7% match but only to employees who contribute at least 5%. Is the plan tested under the ACP test or the Nondiscrimination test under 401(a)(4)? I assume the ACP since it is conditioned on the employee contributing.