Leaderboard

Wait a sec. You are simply filing a 2017 form and catching up on people who should have been reported in prior years, right? If you file that form on time, there won't be any penalties. Unless there is some kind of audit program I don't know about where they are actually reviewing the 8955 for accuracy in the timing of reporting term'd participants.

This is the way to go. Also note that 2 years of RMD are not eligible for rollover (he should have retired on 1/1/2018).

My reading says it's a two pronged test: 1. subject to US courts; and 2. controlled by a US Person. US Person is defined in 7701(a) (30) United States person The term “United States person” means— (A) a citizen or resident of the United States, It would seem that an E-1 "Treaty Trader" would not qualify as a resident. So, the "control" of the trust must be by US persons, and E-1visa holder is not.

Just curious as to your thinking here. If the spouse is the automatic beneficiary, why would the prior spouse have a say on benefits the new spouse is now the beneficiary of?

Good morning, Jeanie. Thinking about you. The markets are at 2 week highs this morning. Hopefully, this will be reflected through the close and you will be able to see the result (again, depends on the account's investments) tomorrow morning. (Mutual funds do not report intra-day trading so if the markets continue to do well, the Vanguard funds may show it tomorrow morning.) As has been suggested by others on this site, don't rush this the decision to exit the market, if possible. There also will be a lag between the communication of your decision to leave these accounts and the execution of that decision. Hopefully that would only be one day, but, as noted above, mutual funds only trade on values at the close of business each day. For example, if you gave notice to sell today, you would receive the values as of the close of the market today and you would see it tomorrow. I am an attorney not a licensed broker so please note that I am sharing from my own experience and not as an adviser. Peace to you.

I agree with the illustrious (you should see him in person!) Mr. Preston. BUT, as an aside, I wonder about a dentist plan that is using a safe harbor match, since we have many dental office plans and every one of them is top heavy. That means, a 3% top heavy minimum is required, and a 3% nonelective safe harbor contribution usually is much more economically effective for the practice than a match plan. Is this plan not top heavy? Just curious..... We have always told clients that top heavy status is good! "If the plan isn't top heavy, it wasn't designed right!". They, of course, tend to be general tested in most circumstances, but even if the demographics are bad, a design based safe harbor plan (max integration) with a 3% nonelective works very well in most circumstances. All, just FWIW. Larry.