"We have a plan that allows for in-service distributions. A participant who is over 59.5, but under the age for an RMD, has already taken 3 smaller in-service distributions this year and is now inquiring about another. I've always been told that the Plan can't be used like a bank account, and these consistent in-service distributions could cause an issue. So, that leads to two questions: [1] How many in-service distributions are viewed as excessive and, if audited, could cause an issue? [2] What would the ramifications be if it was viewed as excessive?"

[Sponsored]

Join a live discussion on Thursday, August 15th to learn about current and proposed pension related mandates from the PBGC and DOL. Panelists: Jim Donofrio, Mariah Becker and Randall McGeorge. Host: Berwyn University.

"So, corporation A purchases 100% of corporation B in a stock sale. Both corporations sponsor a 401(k) plan. 2 weeks after the sale, they now decide to look at the plan issues. So, clearly a controlled group now. Corporation A crediting service with Corporation B, etc., etc. Corporation A wants to now terminate Corporation B plan. But this brings in successor plan rule. How is this mess typically dealt with?"

"We file one 403(b) 5500. It is a TIAA 403(b) plan document. I assume the plan sponsor should have a copy of the Opinion Letter for 5500 purposes?"

"Plan had an extension filed, and lo and behold they filed 5500 by original due date, with form indicating 5558 had been filed. Not that this is a particularly important question, but would the SAR due date be 2 months after original due date, or after extended due date?"

"For an employer who files a Schedule C and has a few W-2 employees. Is the plan deductibility limit for employer contributions (employer's net Schedule C + w-2) * .25? Does anyone have any information on this?"

"Mr. X has his own IRA, is receiving RMDs on that, and is receiving distributions as a beneficiary of an inherited IRA from his father. He passes away in 2023. His wife gets part of both IRAs and his niece gets part of both. Someone decided it was ok to combine the personal IRA proceeds and the inherited IRA, and set up one IRA for the spouse and one for the niece. Is that ok? I'd think that the inherited IRA has to continue at the payout method set up, so if the spouse claims the new commingled IRA as her own, that would be stretching out the inherited IRA payments longer than they otherwise should be. The niece's part would probably be ok under the 10 year rule although I'm not sure what the remaining payout period was on the inherited IRA so maybe not. I appreciate any thoughts."

"One person solo 401k was terminated and assets were rolled over middle of Dec 2023. At the end of December, a small dividend was posted. It was rolled over to IRA on Jan 2nd 2024. This was for a business that was closed. I understand a final form 5500 ez needs to be filed for 2024 selecting short year plan. Answering questions regarding number of participants and asset totals at the beginning and end of the years, not sure what to select. At the beginning of Jan 2024, balance that was on the account was only the small dividend that posted on Dec 29th. Total plan assets -- is the beginning of year total the amount that was first rolled over in Dec 2023 plus dividend? Or is it the dividend from January? I know ending balance is zero. Was the participant still an active participant at the beginning of the 2024? Since plan was terminated in 2023, what would be the correct answer? When answering Contributions received from employer and participant -- are these amounts for the entire time the plan existed? ... Hoping to get some advice since it's due today."

"We have a client looking to purchase 100% of the equity interests of an LLC that is currently disregarded for tax purposes. In the course of diligence, we discovered that the LLC is party to two agreements under which it provides deferred compensation to each of two employees. The agreements were not drafted with 409A in mind and so are neither structured to be exempt from or clearly compliant with 409A. We are currently evaluating the extent to which we can argue that the agreements are operationally compliant with 409A. Based on the language of the agreements, we cannot take advantage of any 409A exemption. The agreements include a change in control as a payment trigger. We understand that, even though the 409A change in control rules (payment trigger and permissible termination rules) are only explicitly written to apply to corporations, the IRS has indicated that these rules apply by analogy to entities taxed as partnerships.... Is it permissible to apply these rules by analogy to a disregarded entity as well? That is, is it permissible to take the position that a 409A-compliant change in control is triggered when 100% of the equity interests of a disregarded entity are sold (to a non-related entity)? Or, to be compliant with 409A change in control rules, must the change in control be triggered with respect to an entity that is taxed as a corporation or partnership?"