Leaderboard

Does this question even make sense? I see the timeline as follows: Person terminates in 2015. The loan is defaulted and is taxable for that year. The loan was paid in full 3 years after you left employment. That is the part I don't get. They let you pay a 401(k) loan after you terminated and it was made taxable to you?

It does not appear that this was intended to be a DRO, much less a QDRO. Perhaps the judge could have modified the prior DRO to treat the ex-spouse as the surviving spouse, in which case we would only be dealing with the issue of whether that done posthumously was valid, but that's not what the judge did. The PA needs to be concerned about its fiduciary duties here, and whereas fiduciaries usually only have to review facts in this case it is incumbent upon the PA to consider the law.

The plan owns the real estate; the plan is the OWNER. Who else should pay expenses attributed to the RE? Who would pay for a plumber to fix the pipes? It has to be the plan that pays the expense. Another reason (among the thousands!) for why RE does not belong in the plan. There are things that are legal, but stupid! We consider it out job to keep the clients from doing both! :-)

Forbidden. 1.401(k)-(b)(4)(iiii)(B) ...for example a plan that applies the current year testing method may not be aggregated with another plan that applies the prior year testing method. (And you have to be consistent, if you aggregate for coverage you have to aggregate for nondiscrim and vice versa)

If you're not sure which you're looking at, the K-1 for a partnership will be identified as Form 1065 and for an S-corp will be Form 1120S. (Edit: the K-1 will be identified as an attachment to one of those forms. Not trying to suggest that the entire form is the K-1. Just to be clear)

Ma'am, you need a lawyer. If (as I infer) this is a state or local government plan, you need to find one in the jurisdiction of the plan.

Please provide more complete info. OK, it's a S corp. Is the W-2 from the S Corp? Where did the K-1 come from? Are you talking about an S distribution? If so, it isn't earned income and is ignored and only the W-2 matters. More complete info always gets better answers.

To treat what happened as a mistake and not a transaction, the plan’s administrator would do a prudent investigation to satisfy itself that it understands what happened and finds the reporting would be truthful and not misleading. And recognizing that a prohibited transaction or a fiduciary’s lack of control always matters for a plan’s financial statements (even if all amounts are immaterial or even insignificant), the independent qualified public accountant might have some responsibilities. Further, a plan’s administrator might prefer to report a transaction (and its correction) in a Form 5500 schedule and in the IQPA report’s narrative. Doing so might result in the Secretary of Labor having knowledge that triggers ERISA § 413’s three-year statute of limitations.