Leaderboard

From my perspective, the current pension valuation tools solve all of the problems that Mike addressed. The client who does not understand present value math will find the CB plan much more to his liking, while the convert from public plan employment will understand the traditional DB formulas more easily, unless they offer lump sum benefits. I find the 417(e) rules definitely favor CB.

We should not be a "Trad'l DB guy" or a "CB guy". We should do what's best for a client. Just let it go Mike

I recall at the first ERPA conference in Chicago in 2010, that we indeed did get an hour of credit for learning about how to get more CE. The woman from the IRS (I think it was Deborah Lorning, but not sure) mentioned she's not sure she would have approved such a class after the fact.

Of Course - the sponsor may have just failed to restate, but Ft. William has a PPA doc.

Restated doc - it’s required

$6500. No. Good Luck!

You didn't read my first point thoroughly, huh?

This might help.

To all that it applies. I am so graciously thankful for my mom. She may be in her 90s, but I have been so blessed, and so lucky I can still take care of her at home. well worth the time and effort. God has been so good to me!

It's an interesting question and I spent zero time looking for any IRS or court interpretations of this requirement other than reading the statute and the relevant regulation (no differences). But on its face, I think your clients are correctly applying the ordinary meaning of the word "and". "Ordinarily, as in everyday English, use of the conjunctive "and" in a list means that all of the listed requirements must be satisfied, while use of the disjunctive "or" means that only one of the listed requirements need be satisfied." Therefore, since all of the requirements are not satisfied (i.e., the one spouse does not participate in the management of the other spouse's corporation), then that individual/spouse satisfies the requirement that they are not a member of the board of directors, not an employee, and do not participate in the management of such corporation. I know that with the double negatives, it gets confusing, but I believe that they are correct. Just an opinion though. There are instances where a court has interpreted "and" as disjunctive but those are relatively few and far between. Context is, of course, everything. The source of the quote above can be found here: https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/97-589.html

The suggestion of consulting with an English professor is exactly right! The client is not reading the code section properly. The general rule of 1563 is that there is attribution between spouses. Then there is an exception to attribution. The exception will apply if: The individual is not a director or employee and does not participate in the management of such corporation at any time during such taxable year If either the condition before the "and", or the condition after the "and" are applicable, the exception does not apply.

Austin, you missed my point. Of course -11(g)(2) allows a retroactive amendment to correct minimum coverage etc etc, but that is not an exclusive allowance. It is -11(g)(3) that gives you the CONDITIONS for a corrective amendment, and if you meet all those conditions, the amendment is allowed whether it is for the purpose of meeting the item in -11(g)(2) or not. BTW, this is NOT controversial at all in the industry; it is now routine. So yes, I do an -11g amendment that says "I'm adding $10k to Employee X allocation in addition to the regular allocation he is getting under the terms of the plan" (paraphrasing substantially) and I also have a line that says "it is intended that this amendment be an -11g amendment" (paraphrasing again). Because you want to give the amendment retroactive effect AFTER the end of the plan year, it needs to be an -11g amendment. If you do the amendment prior to the end of the year, it actually gets more complicated because now you do have to tie it in with the regular formula or allocations so that they dovetail and get the results you want. -11(g) is easy solution.