Leaderboard

"Other than potential discrimination in operation for the timing of deposits, does anyone see a problem funding before year end and immediately converting to Roth?" I can't get to the Roth conversion, because the deposit scheme you propose fails miserably, IMHO. Plan has an allocation method. Contributions must be allocated according to that method. Making a contribution just for the owner on January 1m whether or not he converts to Roth, just isn't acceptable. As the AFLAC commercial guy says when asked if the duck kicking the golf ball into the hole is legal, "That's a big fat NOOO." Others may, of course, disagree.

Suggest that the broker check to see what the plan says.

It is (or should be) impossible that EFAST cannot handle changes in the names of plans. Utterly ridiculous and everyone reading this thread knows it. If there is no satisfaction to be had, go up the chain as high as necessary. Having an error flag for a change in the plan name is, plain and simple, a bug. At most it should be a warning.

Not sure about that advice. The SEP document, even the IRS model form, if adopted by the employer of these employees likely gives them rights enforceable under ERISA.

or I suppose, and I could see myself doing this: mis-typing last year's name

A relevant rule states: "No tax is imposed under this section on any excess contribution or excess aggregate contribution ... to the extent the contribution (together with any income allocable thereto) is corrected before the close of the first 2 1/2 months of the following plan year[.]" 26 C.F.R. 54.4979-1©(1). A plan's administrator might want its lawyer's advice about how to interpret the sentence's use of the word "corrected". And if the word "corrected" might be interpreted to follow the statute's use of the word "distributed", an administrator might want advice about interpreting the meaning of "distributed". Might it might something different than paid? All that said, I don't doubt anyone's description about what an IRS examiner might do. But is there room for a plan's administrator to find "substantial authority" (within the meaning of 26 C.F.R. 1.6662-4) for a reporting position that no excise tax is due?