Below Ground Posted January 30, 2008 Posted January 30, 2008 During 2007 Employer deposits $73,000 to a profit sharing plan's trust fund. The last deposit of the $73,000 was actually made on 12/31/2007, and was $11,000. Review of allocation results cause the Employer to only wanting to allocate $62,000, not the $73,000 deposited. Other points are: (1) the Maximum Deductible Amount is $81,000, and (2) there is no resolution or other documenation defining the Employer contribution to be $73,000. What options exist? Can the Trust simply hold the "extra" $11,000 as advance contribution for 2008? Having braved the blizzard, I take a moment to contemplate the meaning of life. Should I really be riding in such cold? Why are my goggles covered with a thin layer of ice? Will this effect coverage testing? QPA, QKA
J Simmons Posted January 30, 2008 Posted January 30, 2008 My understanding is that without a prior or contemporaneous designation for a different plan year, the contribution counts for the plan year in which actually made. It is either an extreme coincidence or there is a reason that the $11,000 is the amount in question, is the amount of the difference and was made just one day before it could count for 2008 without any plan year designation. The reasons behind that might give indicia that it was intended for 2008 at the time it was made. You might be able to make a case from such indicia for there having been a de facto designation for 2008. John Simmons johnsimmonslaw@gmail.com Note to Readers: For you, I'm a stranger posting on a bulletin board. Posts here should not be given the same weight as personalized advice from a professional who knows or can learn all the facts of your situation.
Below Ground Posted January 31, 2008 Author Posted January 31, 2008 The story I got was that the $11,000 was sent to the broker with instructions (verbal) to deposit on January 1, 2008. The broker instead deposited on December 31. The reason value are "coincidental" is that it was estimated that the amount needed to "max out" the owner would be slight more than $62K. The $11,000 was supposed to provide for the additional sum needed for this goal, with the balance being applied to 2008. The problem is that the deposit was made 1 day early. Now the amount that would have been for 2008 goes only to the "rank and file employees" as the owner is max out when slightly over $62K is allocated. Of course the owner is not happy, but I think that the entire $72,000 must be allocated in 2007 since the deposit was in 2007. Am I wrong? Having braved the blizzard, I take a moment to contemplate the meaning of life. Should I really be riding in such cold? Why are my goggles covered with a thin layer of ice? Will this effect coverage testing? QPA, QKA
Bill Presson Posted January 31, 2008 Posted January 31, 2008 The story I got was that the $11,000 was sent to the broker with instructions (verbal) to deposit on January 1, 2008. The broker instead deposited on December 31.The reason value are "coincidental" is that it was estimated that the amount needed to "max out" the owner would be slight more than $62K. The $11,000 was supposed to provide for the additional sum needed for this goal, with the balance being applied to 2008. The problem is that the deposit was made 1 day early. Now the amount that would have been for 2008 goes only to the "rank and file employees" as the owner is max out when slightly over $62K is allocated. Of course the owner is not happy, but I think that the entire $72,000 must be allocated in 2007 since the deposit was in 2007. Am I wrong? I agree with you. He should have written the check on January 2, 2008. William C. Presson, ERPA, QPA, QKA bill.presson@gmail.com C 205.994.4070
Below Ground Posted January 31, 2008 Author Posted January 31, 2008 Thanks for your reply Bill! Having braved the blizzard, I take a moment to contemplate the meaning of life. Should I really be riding in such cold? Why are my goggles covered with a thin layer of ice? Will this effect coverage testing? QPA, QKA
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now