Leaving aside the issue of rolling out the ROTH piece to a ROTH-IRA to avoid the RMD altogether on that portion, we are working on that for future years, the question I have is this: Let's say the ROTH-401(k) piece has a RMD of $5,000 and the "rest" of the traditional non-ROTH assets has an additional RMD of $20,000. Assuming the Plan's administrative policy allows, can the participant chose which sources to take the full plan RMD of $25,000 from or does the RMD have to be prorated between ROTH/non-ROTH? I was under the impression participant could chose since it is a "PLAN RMD" and not a "SOURCE RMD" but I've been unable to find definitive support that clearly allows it. I also assume the Plan should have procedures in place for how it treats RMDs where participant is non-responsive as to how the RMD will be allocated but that's not really an issue for this particular RMD.

Are you an experienced attorney who can handle issues involving private and government retirement plans? Join our no-fee National Pension Lawyers Network ! There is no obligation to take any case we refer to you. Join our network!

Does anyone know of good resources to come up with a due diligence request as to the buyer's conduct as a fiduciary. We have reason to be cautious about the manner in which buyer performs its fiduciary duties and we'd like to see the processes in place to ensure that it does not breach fiduciary status. As the seller would still be involved post-merger, we would not like to minimize the potential for liability due to a buyer breach.

I switched jobs earlier this year. Coverage with old employer (no HSA but has employer provided HRA) ends 11/30. New employer has only HDHP plans and I have signed up for a HSA -- coverage begins 12/1. Is there a problem contributing to HSA starting 12/1 or should I defer to the 1st of the new year?

Participant A owns 100% of XYZ corp which sponsors the XYZ Plan. As of 1/1/19, participant A will acquire a significant percentage of ABC corp, which sponsors the ABC Plan. ABC and XYZ will be a controlled group as of 1/1/19. XYZ corp is mostly management, ABC Corp is mostly non-skilled labor. The ABC Plan and the XYZ Plan are both at the same recordkeeper, and the plans will have the same plan design and availability. The only difference is that the ABC Plan has higher recordkeeping fees. As of now, they would prefer to keep the plans separate. I had a chat with the financial advisor (same advisor on both plans) the other day, and his concern is whether different pricing could be a nondiscrimination issue. My assumption is that the pricing difference is not arbitrary but based on assets, participation rates, and so forth. I believe that all participant features like loans and distributions have identical pricing. It "feels" like a discrimination issue because the plan with mostly low paid labor is priced higher than the plan with mostly higher paid management, but each plan is priced on its own merits. Anyone see an issue with keeping the two plans separate based on the difference in pricing?

We have a 401(k) plan which is sponsored by an entity (Entity A). Entity A is owned by 3 other entities (Entity B, Entity C and Entity D) each with the same ownership % of 33.33%. Entity B and Entity D are disregarded entities, Entity C is just another partnership. The plan document does not list any controlled/affiliated group members. Would the individuals owning 100% of the two disregarded entities be able to include the compensation earned from the disregarded entities in 401(a)(17) compensation for the 401(k) plan sponsored by entity A?