"Hoping for some advice. We just took on a client earlier this year with a DB plan that had been in place for a while. We outsource the actuarial work to several actuaries. The actuary who previously worked on this plan has subsequently passed away this year. In looking for another actuary to take over the case, we are finding the previous work is difficult for the takeover actuary to figure out and they are declining to take on the work. I believe the issue relates to a freezing or capping of benefits that occurred several years ago. Unsure how to proceed."

"457(f) plan provides for substantial risk of forfeiture solely on the condition that the participant perform substantial services for the employer through the initial or extended vesting date. In addition, the plan permits participant and employer to agree to an extension of the substantial risk of forfeiture in accordance with the requirements of the proposed 457(f) regs. More than 90 days before the initial vesting date of January 1, 2020, the parties in fact agree to a materially greater benefit that will vest on January 1, 2022. It would seem that the proposed regs would permit the participant and the employer to once agree to extend the risk of forfeiture in the same fashion provided they enter into the agreement at least 90 days prior to the January 1, 2022 vesting date. Yet, there is no explicit statement to that effect and all of the examples provided only deal with the first extension. Any limitations on (or traps inherent in) doing a second extension?"

"A Plan handed out the NOIT 60 days prior to the proposed termination date. Assume they did not sign the plan termination amendment within that 60 days. But they do sign it within the 90 days. Can they distribute a revised NOIT with the new termination date, and still rely on the date the original NOIT was sent out? Or does the 60 day clock re-start on the day they hand out a revised NOIT with the new termination date?"

"Doctor is W-2 employee and partial owner (somewhere between 10% and 15% ownership) for the first few months of 2019. Quits, sells his stock, and starts a sole prop that is still in existence at the end of the year which appears to be throwing off around $300,000 for 2019 but won't be generating much in the future. Accountant thinks it's a perfect fit for a defined benefit plan! Let's assume that one course of action is to adopt a defined benefit plan that generates a deduction of $200,000 for 2019 and a minimum required contribution for 2020 through 2023 of zero (easily accomplished if sole prop throws off minimal income). Come November 15th or so, Doctor is presented with an opportunity to purchase 100% of the stock of a medical practice where he can hang his hat. Very little income from this entity for Doctor for the balance of 2019. Fly in the ointment-- stock is of a long-standing (more than 10 years) practice which employs 15 employees, each of which have been with the practice for a long time. Two scenarios present themselves: [1] DB plan signed sealed and delivered before November 15th resulting in reliance on 410(b)(6)(C) for the balance of 2019 and 2020 and generating a permanance busting termination on 12/31/2020 due to changed business circumstances. [2] DB plan thought about long and hard but not documented until 12/15/2019 (long after stock purchase) meaning no reliance on 410(b)(6)(C) and qualified status of DB plan dependent on satisfying non-discrimination aggregating the sole prop and the 100% owned medical practice. Too restrictive? Does it get any less restrictive if a SEP-IRA with a contribution of $55,000 is substituted for the DB plan in (b), above? Or does it get more restrictive because the SEP-IRA will no doubt involve a 5305 which requires aggregation?"

"If a retirement plan makes a loan to an unrelated operating business, and the interest is a fixed rate plus a percentage of the business profits, would that trigger UBTI? Does it make a difference if the business is a corporation, partnership or LLC?"

"We are looking into taking over the third party administration of a plan that currently has a QACA that utilizes the 3% non-elective contribution safe harbor method that vests after two years of vesting service. We are exploring changing the ADP safe harbor method to traditional 3% non-elective which is 100% vested immediately, but if the administrator is already successfully administering the QACA, I am thinking this may not be in their best interest. My question: is the ability to administer the QACA properly the only difference between a two year difference in vesting requirement, or are there other considerations? A two year vesting schedule seems like a huge benefit for a small trade-off. The end goal of the program design is to add nonsafe harbor non-elective contributions to the plan and potentially also adopt a DB plan, I want to use the QACA safe harbor contributions towards top-heavy and 401(a) testing if i can, and if it makes sense to continue to maintain the QACA."

"I had a forfeited unvested balance showing on my 401k statements, which resulted in my ex-spouse and I calculating different figures for our QDRO. The unvested balance was forfeited by a 5 year service break before filing the divorce petition. The company kept the forfeited balance in my account for a few months before transferring it back to their account. My position is that the forfeited unvested balance had no value to the marital estate prior to filing for divorce and should not be included in QDRO calculations. What is your opinion?"

"Last year, I had significant capital losses in a cash management account held at Merrill Lynch. I used the $3,000 last year as a way to reduce my taxable income and I still have several thousands that I can roll into 2019 tax year. My question is, can I use those losses to offset a conversion of funds from my traditional IRA to my Roth IRA? Assuming I transfer $10,000 from my traditional IRA into my Roth, and assuming I have a tax rate of 25%, that $2,500 would essentially be nullified by my $3,000 capital loss carryover. Correct? Or do the capital losses have to come from one of the IRA accounts?"

"We have a client, Company A, who sponsored a safe harbor match 401(k) plan. The plan is top heavy for 2019. On 10/01/2019 Company A sold all Company A's assets to Company B. All the owners of Company A became employees of Company B and have no ownership in Company B. Effective with the assets sale on 10/01/2019, Company B took over sponsorship of Company A's 401(k) plan. Going into 2020 Company B would like to amend eligibility to be immediate upon date of hire for salary deferrals but still require 1 year of service to receive the safe harbor match. Would the plan be considered top heavy for 2020 requiring that participants eligible to defer but not eligible for the safe harbor match be given a top heavy benefit?"