VCP and significant or insignificant? Is this a 100% make-up contribution?

Enroll today and make your education a priority in the new year! Enroll in any of these online courses and you'll have instant access to interactive, self-paced online training. Convenient and cost-effective, e-learning courses are the online training solution that fits into your busy schedule.

Small DB plan is terminating. 6 participants. Not covered by PBGC. Not being submitted to IRS. Termination date is 12/31/18. Owner wants to take an in-kind distribution. The document does not currently allow for it, but it's an option on the adoption agreement. If the plan allowed for it, would every participant need to be given the option to elect an in-kind distribution? Could this amendment be done post-termination date? The owner (who is an attorney) wants to be the only participant allowed to elect an in-kind distribution.

Not-for-profit hospital has a 457(f) plan where contributions are made for non-employed physicians as compensation for taking call for the hospital. There is a 3-year vesting period for contributions. Once contributions vest they become taxable to the participant, whether distributed or not. Hospital issues the participant a 1099-MISC reporting the vested amount (contribution plus applicable earnings) in Box 6 (Medical and health care payments). I find nothing in the 1099 instructions to support this, whereas 457(f) distributions are specifically addressed in the W-2 Instructions for Box 1, bullet point 15. However, W-2 Box 1 compensation is applicable to employees, whereas the physician participants in the call pay plan are not otherwise employees of the hospital. Is the reporting of this income on a 1099 appropriate? Or does the 457(f) arrangement by default qualify the participants as employees, and this should be reported on a W-2 instead?

An individual-account (defined-contribution) retirement plan doesn't share longevity and mortality risks. So that aspect isn't a reason to organize a plan around a particular employer. A recent survey suggests about 60% of those employers that maintain a retirement plan would drop it if a government-organized plan were available. Regarding many of the employers, a government-organized plan should have better scale and purchasing power to get services. And for many participants who would have been in micro or small plans, one's expense for investment funds should be no worse (and might be better). Setting aside one's personal interest in continued business or employment, what are the arguments for and against government-organized plans as an alternative to employer-organized plans?