Leaderboard

I would disagree with ERISAAPPLE. The plan document governs the plan. The CBA governs the relationship between employer and employee. The CBA may call for benefits to be provided, but it is a contractual obligation of the employer's to figure out how to accomplish it. If the plan does not reference the benefits promised in the CBA in such a way that it becomes part of the plan documents, the employer is in breach of the CBA, but the plan document should still govern the plan. It is fixable, however....

Lump sum court settlements are not earned income. There is no standard legal way to convert a court settlement into earned income. Therefore if that is your only income source, you do NOT qualify for a Roth. If you have earned income outside of any court settlement which is greater than 2,000 then you qualify for the maximum Roth IRA contribution for that year. It does not matter if you use taxable or non-taxable funds (assuming you are qualified otherwise with earned income) as that is a tax return issue not a Roth issue. You fund an IRA with just cash. In other words, there is no linkage between source of funds and Roth contributions. Cash is cash. You can even have a relative fund your Roth, but first you must be eligible and that is an earned income issue.

30Rock: "This is not a partial termination BECAUSE.......". If you would like people to help you with your questions, it is always best to give full answers to issues raised. For example, is this 10 people out of 1000 employees? Then clearly, no partial term. The numbers involved would have been helpful in the original question. People tend to look at a question once and move on; if all the necessary info isn't there, many will just ignore it and never come back to it. Everyone should try to give as much useful information as possible in the original posting; you are likely to get the best and quickest answers that way. Just something we found was the case after years of running the Pension Information Exchange (the original internet Q&A board).

I can't tell you how strongly I disagree with the last two posts. Life is difficult enough without us creating adverse rules that don't exist. Fact: Identified individual is an NHCE. Fact: An amendment which loosens eligibility in order to advantage an NHCE is not discriminatory. Fact: The natural operation of plan provisions (such as those that turn the NHCE into an HCE in a future year) can not be discriminatory. Strong letter to follow.

In our little corner of ERISA, the employer is also the plan administrator.

An earlier BenefitsLink discussion included an observation that, for many 401(k) plans, a plan's administrator often need not consider whether the participant is disabled - a severance-from-employment alone usually is enough to provide grounds for the distribution.

I think OP is confusing DFVCP (a DOL program) with Rev. Proc. 2015-32 relief (an IRS program). 1) Correct 2) 2016 3) 1/1/2016 - 12/31/2016 4) See this page: https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/penalty-relief-program-for-form-5500-ez-late-filers

So, if there were fewer than $250,000 at EOY 2015, then I wouldn't file it. File 2016 as a first return/report.

No problem. Insurance is in essence a self-directed account and unless there were weird restrictions put in place you could use any source.

I still think that

I'm not a CPA but I thought Partner traditional 401(k) contributions got deducted on their 1040 not the K-1.