it is a true partnership. Can a partner who chooses not to participate in the firm's plan have his own SEP?

Does the the partnership have employees other than owner employees?

no employees. it seems as though the partner just wants to opt out of the plan.

Who is doing the clerical, support work if the law firm has no employees?

All eligible employees must participate in a SEP, including owners. It is the business entity (the partnership) that established the plan. An owner can not opt out. If over age 59-1/2, amounts could be withdrawn shortly after being made.

A "partner," as such, can not have his or her own plan.

Even if the individual had another business, a SEP of such organization would have to cover eligible employees, and the controlled group rules would have to be applied. Hope this helps.

Gary -- As an aside, why would employees have to be 59-1/2 to take a distribution from an SEP?

I'm assuming he meant in order to avoid the premature distribution penalty tax.

NO

the law firm has employees but the individual partner has no employees.

Then pay particular attention to the last sentence in Gary Lesser's post #5 above.

The individual partner cannot function alone. The others must be taken into acocount when considering if the SEP ocverage rules are satisfied. The partner has employees. I have run across erroneous "professional" advice of this sort before.

Then why, Bird?

The 5305-SEP is clear, and yet you said they were lawyers????? They should be able to read the law and regulations as well, if not better than non-lawyers!

rdcline -- Is Bird's "NO" (post #8) a response to the OP, or to post #7 (which it appears to be)? I can read the Code & regs--maybe even better than a few non-lawyers!!--and I understand the No if it's responding to the OP. But I cannot understand it for what it looks like: a response to post #7 (which is an answer posed to post #6 which had questioned a statement in post #5). There were 2 conversations going on, and Bird answered the OP without considering that the conversation had turned in another direction.

By the way . . . it's too bad you think that we lawyers should be infallible. Most of us sure don't think so.

Larry, unfortunately all of you are given a bad rap by the loud mouth few who think they are not only infallible, but also otherwise perfect people.

Larry

I hope that you do realize that you could be wrong about what you think most lawyers think about being infallible.

Also, non-lawyers probably think differently about the issue, since they see it from an objective point of view. The view could be quite different from the other side.

My "NO" was to the original post. Trying to emphasize that there was no further discussion needed but I guess that backfired.

Bird -- Thanks for clearing up your "No". Interesting how even that seemingly simple word can be misinterpreted, as it was in this string!! Therfore, I believe the bottom line re: my inquiry on SEP distributions is that attainment of age 59-1/2 is not required.

George -- I do realize that I may be wrong when I say that most lawyers do not think they are infallible. Some of that belief in infallibility, I think, is because lawyering is a profession where you often (or, for litigators, always) are asked to strenuously advocate a client's position, and, if you are not careful and discriminating, advocacy (in this case, for yourself) has a way of creeping into your every thought. I've never been able to determine if being a lawyer makes a person an ***hole or if it's just that those kind of people tend to become laywers--the old chicken or egg argument!! Rest assured, however, that there are plenty of reasonable, ethical, and personable lawyers out there--some of them are on this Board. (How about this one: 2 lawyers were having a discussion, and one said "Did you know that lawyers never agree on anything?". The other lawyer replied: "Yes they do.")

What if the pope is a lawyer or a lawyer is the pope?