A non-key employee is still employed at her company that has a 401k plan. She turned 70?1/2 in 2017 and would have been due her initial RMD 4/1/18. But, since she is still employed, chose not to take that. Given her age, the plan allows for her to take all of her money out of the plan as an in-service withdrawal. Although still employed, she wants to roll all of her money out of the 401k plan and into an IRA before the end of 2018. She would like to avoid taking an initial RMD from these assets until 2019. If she were to transfer the plan assets to an IRA before the end of 2018, would she then be required to take a 2018 RMD from the IRA or could that be delayed until 2019?

Employer has a HDHP and provides a self insured HRA administered by a TPA. Employer has a business associate contract with TPA. If employer required to send out a HIPAA Notice of Privacy Practices to HRA participants even though employer does not receive PHI related to HRA?

The company filed a Form 5300 for a determination letter a few years ago and qualified for the user fee exemption. Now they are terminating the plan and filing a Form 5310. Does the user fee exemption still apply? There have been no changes, e.g., the company is still the same size.

Client missed minimum funding deadline of September 15, but said date falls on a weekend. Client got the funding in by the following Monday. Is this an issue or is the deadline pushed back because Sep. 15 fell on a Saturday this year?

We have an employee whose last day of work occurred mid-September. He was participating in both our group health plan and our HRA. He remains covered by the health plan through the end of the month. The question is whether he is also covered by our HRA during that time. In our plan adoption agreement, we have one clause that states that "an Employee is eligible to participate in the Plan under the same terms and conditions as under the Company benefit plan" -- and our group health plan is then specified as the "Company benefit plan." However, later in the agreement, we have a clause that says "Permit Eligible Employees to participate in the Plan after Termination" and the "No" box is checked. So our TPA is saying that the ex-employee's access to his HRA ends on his last day of work (or technically, the next day). But that seems to conflict with the first clause and in addition, it seems, shall we say, asymmetrical to allow an ex-employee to continue to accrue expenses under the health plan, while denying him access to the HRA at the same time. I am not sure which clause should take precedence or whether it is up to us, as the plan administrators, to override our TPA's interpretation if we so wish. Or should we just check with an ERISA lawyer?

A business is 100% owned by one person. We have set up a restricted stock plan under which participants vest in their stock as the owner sells his ownership. So, for example, if the owner sells 10%, a participant will vest in 10% of what he is granted. If the owner later sells another 16%, a participant will vest in another 16% of what he is granted. I don't think this is a problem, because restricted stock is exempt from 409A. Hence I don't think we have to follow the payment trigger rules of 409A. A participant generally has to be employed on the vesting date, but if he terminates employment not for cause or due to death or disability, he can vest if the owner sells any stock during the 12 months following termination.

It appears that Roth 403(b) contributions in included in the W-2 Box 1 calculation of wages and also noted with code BB in Box 12. Can the employee Roth 403(b) contribution be used to satisfy the earned income test associated with making contributions to a outside traditional or Roth IRA? Said another way -- assuming no other earned income, if MFJ, can a $13k after tax employee contribution to a Roth 403(b) be used to meet the earned income test to allow additional 2 x $6.5k contributions to a couple's Roth IRAs?

Employers can match employees' contributions to their FSAs, up to the limit for that year. Can employers place their own limits based on plan type? In other words, can an employer match up to $2,600 for a family plan, up to $1,500 for a 2-person plan, and up to $500 for a single plan? Along the same lines, can the employer match be different if an employee selects a Cadillac vs. a HDHP plan?

Confession: I've only seen two uniform points plans in my life. We've just been given a situation where such a plan failed nondiscrimination testing, because the formula (which has apparently always worked well in the past) heavily weights contributions based on years of service. One of the owners retired unexpectedly one month into the year, and the plan waives the normal 1,000 hours/last day requirement for retirement on or after NRA. Since his comp was so low (only one month's comp), former owner gets something like 60+% of pay, so the average for the HCEs is too high to pass testing. Although I don't have hard data, it appears that restructuring won't work, or at least not at a contribution level that is possible/palatable. (Query -- does the prohibition against uniform points in one of the restructured plans apply if the plan is uniform points to start with, or does it apply only if you are attempting to restructure to a uniform points plan where it isn't ALREADY a uniform points plan?) OK, so you go to rate group testing, which also fails. An 11(g) amendment could be done, but here's my question: when you do such an amendment for this type of plan, I assume that any corrective amount/increase to the necessary number of NHCE's must still be allocated (or calculated) on the uniform points allocation formula in the plan. Correct? To ask it another way, can you simply assign random amounts to random participants like you can in an "everyone in their own group" profit sharing plan, or must you somehow amend the plan to increase the formula for a select group of NHCEs, so that they get "x" points for each unit of compensation, rather than "y" units that they get under the current formula? I suppose it ultimately has the same effect, because the formula would be adjusted for those selected individuals to achieve a passing percentage, so it is ultimately the same thing. Ugh -- if now going to the rate group test, is it going to have to pass gateway? Or is the fact that the basic formula is a uniform points allocation which isn't subject to gateway a saving provision? Or, is there a better way to do all this? I know the 11(g) amendments are pretty flexible, but I've never run into this particular situation.