RatherBeGolfing

Registered
 View profile
  • Content count

    371
  • Joined

  • Last visited

 See their activity

RatherBeGolfing last won the day on March 22

RatherBeGolfing had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

130 Excellent

About RatherBeGolfing

  • Rank
    Registered User

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Tampa, FL

Recent Profile Visitors

382 profile views
  1. I agree with you on asset sale vs stock sale above. In OPs case where a majority owner (60%) simply buys out the minority owner to become 100% owner, I would not expect many changes at all, if any.
  2. I was expecting someone not connected to the current plan to be the one making that recommendation. I'm more concerned that the current provider is telling you to terminate and start over... What don't they want you too find out?
  3. or it is not treated as hyper manual because of mapping and then the doo-doo hits the fan down the road Shouldn't be an issue to get it through VCP with or without an earlier document that allowed Roth, it just isn't something you can self correct.
  4. Well 33.33% is a great return on investment
  5. Yea, but its $700 if you invest $1,000,000...
  6. While I have heard of individual cases where the DOL has accepted that no audit will be done, it is very rare, and it takes a lot of negotiation. They are not going to accept this at face value, nor should they. A local auditor I know has a plan where the sponsor is no longer in business and the principals are in jail for fraud. Last I time I spoke to the CPA handling the case the DOL is still expecting an audit to be done...
  7. Agreed. If you are going to fix it, fix it all with one low user fee. I believe late EZ filings are also subject to a cap. The consulting fee for preparing 27 years of admin/returns might not be so low though...
  8. And those items would easily be accounted for when reconciling the trust and return.
  9. What Mike said. Also, try searching through EFAST rather than a third party EFAST 5500 Search
  10. That sounds reasonable. It should have been paid by the employer, but was paid by the employee, so making a QNEC in that amount to would make the participant whole (more than whole..) At least that is what I get from reading 6.07(1). It would make less sense for the employer to only be on the hook for the withholding if other assets were also distributed, since the failure has to do with when the loan was taxable...
  11. Thanks, makes a lot more sense now. It seems to me that the requirement for the Employer to pay the applicable income tax would be there regardless of whether the 20% withholding was required at the time of the distribution since that is connected to the failure that made the loan taxable in the year of correction rather than the year of default. Basically, the employer is on the hook for the applicable income taxes regardless of whether additional distributions were made which made the entire amount (loan and non loan assets) subject to 20% withholding. The controlling factor is that the loan assets are taxable in the year of correction rather than the year of default. Interesting fact pattern...
  12. Let me see if I'm getting the facts right... 1. Participant had a loan that should have been defaulted and taxed to the participant in 2015. 2. Instead, the loan was defaulted when participant terminated in 2016. For 2016, the participant was issued a 1099 for the defaulted loan and for the remaining assets in his account. 3. Because there were additional assets distributed when the loan was deemed distributed, 20% withholding should have been done on the entire amount, rather than non-loan assets only. Withholding was done on non-loan assets and IRS is making the sponsor pay for the tax 20% tax deposit on the loan assets.
  13. Short answer? Yes. I normally do not take on clients who are unwilling to fix known errors. Can you prepare statements and returns using numbers you know are wrong? Especially when you don't even know why the numbers are bad? I personally don't think so. Do I miss out on some business because clients refuse to correct prior bad work? Yup, but a vast majority of clients would rather get it fixed than just continue with bad data. In order to "patch" differences between return and report, you have to at least know what you are patching and why. If there is an unexplained difference, you need to investigate. That is my opinion, your mileage may vary.
  14. The closest I can get to a citation that is somewhat relevant is Mack v. Kuckenmeister, a 9th Circuit case from 2010. In Mack, the the Participant murdered his wife before their divorce was final. Before the murder, Participant had agreed to name the wife the alternate beneficiary, but a QDRO had not yet been issued. The estate filed a motion to have a QRDO issued retroactively which was granted and appealed all the way to the 9th Circuit which held that state court has jurisdiction to determine whether an order is a QDRO. It may be something to consider but the best advice you can get in here is to to consult an attorney licensed to practice in your state.
  15. If it is small enough, I agree with BG. Otherwise, you may need to amend prior year 5500.