Leaderboard

As mentioned on a few prior occasions, be very careful when you consider “legal separation”. Please see Q&A 20, 22, 25, and (especially) 27 in IRS reg. 1.401a-20. In Q&A27, note the sentence: "Also, if the participant is legally separated or the participant has been abandoned (within the meaning of local law) and the participant has a court order to such effect, spousal consent is not required unless a QDRO provides otherwise." Focus on the word “and”. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2016-title26-vol6/pdf/CFR-2016-title26-vol6-sec1-401a-20.pdf

If only the retirement plan's trustee had the right to sell or redeem the investment, should the plan's administrator demand that the investment business pay the administrator's expenses, including professionals' fees, for corrections?

You do not have to wait.

No, you can't do that. Whatever eligibility requirements they select apply to all employees. The Form 8905-SEP or document used to establish the SEP should clearly say that. We have a huge volume of rules in ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code intended to prevent the type of discrimination you are asking about.

Uh, a "cynical ranting mood" seems to be the new normal. You are in good company.

Another version of this that I never had to show my work to the DOL or IRS but how I computed a large group of people's lost earns was I put $100 in the DOL calculator. It came back with a result. For example, $117.29 was the result I got. I took any given person's late deferral times by 1.11729 in a spreadsheet. I checked my work on a few people via the DOL calculator and got within a penny for results. We used those results to compute the deposit and the excise tax due. Once you know the compounded interest rate factor if everyone has the same situation it ought to work. I haven't worked on 4k plans now for 5 years and like I said I never had to show my work to a DOL auditor or IRS auditor as they never asked but I don't see how that math doesn't work every time.

here is how I learned http://www.addletters.com/pictures/bart-simpson-generator/5908406.htm#.WRMOpzbruJA

Politics is all about what you do now to get re-elected, not what you do for the long term health and welfare of the nation. Killing small business retirement plans to generate current revenue at the expense of both future revenue - because it's a tax deferral - and the cost of increased future entitlements - because more people will retire into poverty - is short-sighted. Same with negotiating with unions on governmental plans, particularly post-retirement health, as politicians secure lower current wage increases for immediate tax savings but give away unsustainable future benefits and let future generations deal with it. These "kick the can down the road" policies are setting this country up for a huge generation and class warfare among four quadrants of citizens: wealthy aged, poor aged, self-sufficient youth and un/under-employed youth. Forget political term limits - make everything an extended single term so there are no re-elections, and mandate there must be a "term off" before running for a different office. Then we might get true public servants with the country's best interests in mind, not career politicians working only to stay in power. Unfortunately, "House of Cards" is probably very close to true politics in this country.

The only way I see for them to avoid reducing the NHCE allocations is to deposit the additional amount needed to bring the two who were shortchanged up to the same percentage of pay allocation that the others received, adjusted for lost income. That is the EPCRS pre-approved correction for someone who is improperly excluded from the PS contribution and should be equally valid for someone who received less than they should have under the allocation used. They didn't follow the document and that needs to be corrected. Their two options are reallocate the contribution amount or make a corrective deposit.

First, learn what "tongue in cheek" means, then re-read my post with that knowledge. Second, considering legislation that potentially kicks the "poorest" American's off health insurance (and consequently actual health care) just made it through the House, I dispute your contention that CongressCritters care at all about the "poorest." Third, they did it before (TRA86 that cut the 402(g) limit by, what, 80%?). Fourth, you apparently have more of those funny cigarettes, if you think ANYTHING bi-partisan is going to pass in the foreseeable future (and it really hasn't in the past 8-1/2 years) Fifth, your "$40k" loan scenario is probably just another reason why plan loans are a bad idea. One never knows anymore when one's job is going to be eliminated without warning. It's happened to me (and thankfully, I heed my own advice that "Loans... EVIL!"