Leaderboard

1. How much money is at stake? It could be cheaper and easier to just give in. 2. Anybody like to predict what the IRS would do in response to a refusal to grant the vesting specified for 2009 and 2010 based on an assertion that the relevant statute of limitations has expired? The IRS position is likely to be that failure to recognize that a partial termination had occurred is an operational failure. I don't remember there being a statute of limitations with respect to operational failures. Don't some VCP corrections involve having to go back for years and years? 3. The question is not whether the IRS could issue an unfavorable letter, but (I suppose) whether the sponsor could get it overturned in tax court. See #1 above in deciding how aggressively to not give in. 4. Does the agent's assessment of the prior pattern of termination as being a partial termination appear to be valid? If not, consider trying to get it bumped up to a higher level within the IRS.

You'll need two 1099s. We typically have processed it as two separate distributions and two fees because of the extra work.

one such write up is found here https://www.orrick.com/Events-and-Publications/Pages/New-401-k-Correction-Procedures.aspx of course, it wasn't really written to handle your particular case in which it was a one time 'extra large' deferral. still, the concept of the employee benefiting by getting the deferral put in by a QNEC and still keeping the comp is the type of windfall this was intended to stop. and yes, this says the match is still required

NHCE or not, it would be inappropriate for a plan sponsor to adopt a death benefit for an unmarried deceased participant without providing the same death benefit for every single similarly situated participant in the future. Things are just not done that way! Also, with respect to the original post, does anyone else agree with me that Son#1 cutting out Son#2 based on Son#1's assessment that Son#2 is "unworthy" represents abuse of authority as a Power of Attorney? Aren't the POAs supposed to exercise their authority on what is virtually a fiduciary basis?

Just call him Wart. Because it rhymes with Art. Gosh, it must have been around 35 years ago when I read that book - forgotten all about it. Maybe I'll have to re-read it!

We use ASC documents. They are definitely worth a look. Their documents are flexible and their support is outstanding.

be careful to review the power of attorney document carefully. i had a case where the POA document specifically stated that the POA would have the power to designate the beneficiary but not to change a previously designated beneficiary.