Leaderboard

Since this is a corporation, I don't think number two applies. Therefore, since the corporation is not owned solely by 1 owner and spouse, they don't satisfy #1, and cannot file an EZ. At least IMHO. A one-participant plan means a retirement plan (that is, a defined benefit pension plan or a defined contribution profit-sharing or money purchase pension plan), other than an Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP), which: 1. Covers only you (or you and your spouse) and you (or you and your spouse) own the entire business (which may be incorporated or unincorporated); or 2. Covers only one or more partners (or partners and their spouses) in a business partnership; and 3. Does not provide benefits for anyone except you (or you and your spouse) or one or more partners (or partners and their spouses).

GMK, I'm going to the attorney and saying "forget it, no can do, give me an amount." I'll let you know what he says.

I'm used to seeing "the AP is hereby awarded 50% of the balance as of 6/30/2014, adjusted for gains or losses." The cookiness is that there is a pot of money and the only relevant question is out of that pot of money how much goes each party. Anytying else is just compliacating the matter...

I doubt there is a regulation that says you have to have a separate forfeiture account. What you can quote to him are all the rules that require trustees to run the plan for the benefit of ALL the participants and what he is doing is giving himself all the earnings from the forfeitures. That isn't for the benefit of all the employees. I think he could get hit with violating his fiduciary duty to the other participants by doing what he is doing. I am assuming the forfeitures do get reallocated at some point although the way your phrase the sentence about and use the word "supposed" creates some doubt. If the forfeitures aren't being reallocated per the terms of the document then quote to him the rules about how failing to abide by the terms of the plan is a disqualifying defect.

In fact assuming there was no balance in the IRA before the rollover there is no way to compute the RMD. Simple example: Person turns 70.5 in 2014. They take a distribution from a 401(k). The RMD is paid and on 7/1/2014 they put money into the IRA. Any 2014 RMD would be computed on the 12/31/2013. The balance as of 12/31/2013 would have been zero. Even if the IRA has a balance as of 12/31/2013 since the distribution wasn't added until 2014 the new money wouldn't be included in the computation. In that case there would be an RMD but like I said it would be based on the money in the IRA as of 12/31/2013.

Sure. Many people who are age 70 1/2 and still employed often roll their IRA balances over to the qualified plans in order to suspend their RMDs until termination of employment. There's no issue with doing this. Good Luck!