Leaderboard

@RatherBeGolfing - And lo, it was so. Please post a reply here, and see if your status (shown under your user name, at the left side of your posted reply) changes from "Registered User" to "Senior Contributor" -- I am setting up a system whereby a Registered User becomes a Senior Contributor automatically when the 1,000th post is posted. A Senior Contributor will be able to create a poll. You should see a new "tab" that appears when you click on the "Start New Topic" button which appears on almost all web pages. The default tab is for posting a new topic as before, but the other tab will enable a Senior Contributor to create a poll. (I haven't found a way to automatically promote all Registered Users who already have 1,000 or more posts, but upon making another post a Registered User is supposed to be auto-promoted.) A person whose title is "Moderator" (regardless of the number of posts) also has this ability

This reminds me of my most glorious case. A local fellow in Florida had been sent the wrong version of an SPD for a welfare benefit plan, after he had asked the HR department to send him an SPD. It said he would get a benefit if he met "X" conditions described in the SPD. So he quit, relying on the fact that he had met those conditions. His claim for benefits is denied. "But lady..." he says. -- "Sorry, bud, that's not what our SPD says", they say. "But mine says..." he protests. -- "Well, that's not the current version. You're looking at an old version" they respond. -- "But lady, then you must have sent me this old one when I asked you to send me an SPD, just before I quit in reliance on what I had read in the booklet." HR responds, "I don't think that happened, sir. You must have had an old version already that you got mixed up, and, frankly, we can't honor your claim because we would be vulnerable to fraudulent claims by people who say they are in a similar situation. You'd need to be able to prove that you were sent the old version." He comes to see me. I meet with him, take the stamped envelope in which the SPD came, hand-addressed to him by the HR department. I tell him this will be a tough one, and I'll get back to him. I write a long letter to the plan administrator, complete with the law on detrimental reliance (which basically shoehorns these claims into an "interpretation of the plan document" theory -- which is weak, but it often worked, ironically due to an SPD case I had argued and won in the Eleventh Circuit, which I "mentioned" in my letter). I get a response that's basically what he had been told, again saying the plan formerly included the conditions he says he's relying on, but frankly they can't honor a possibly fraudulent claim and there's just not enough evidence here for the plan administrator to grant the claim. A few days later, I'm looking at the file again. The sunlight from my south-facing window catches the shiny cover of the SPD. I tilt the booklet at an angle and behold -- I see an impression of the client's name and address, essentially embossed in the shiny cover of the SPD. The person in the HR department had used a ball-point pen that had pressed through the envelope and onto the SPD cover, where there was an exact copy of the name and address that had been written on the date-stamped envelope. So the envelope matched the SPD, proving the old version had been sent to him on the date of the postmark on the envelope. I write to the plan administrator and tell them what I've discovered. They grant the claim. I should find the 20-year-old file and confirm that I'm remembering all the facts accurately, but this is the gist of it. Or how I want to remember it, anyway ? The client was enormously grateful, and the "extra" benefit made a huge difference in his quality of life.

It’s not obvious that the CPA described in ratherbereading’s example violated a professional-conduct rule. Not knowing the scope of the CPA’s engagement, it’s possible—even if the employer paid wages for no work—that the CPA correctly performed her engagement.

Things have taken a dark turn. Let's turn back a bit. The IRS is unlikely to challenge compensation to an owner's wife of less than $30,000 as unreasonable even if the only work is "pillow talk advisory" in nature. But I agree, it sounds like an excess that must be corrected. Unless the last payroll was an error and it should be re-run in which case maybe it isn't an excess at all!

I explained that in my post, or at least made assumptions - the val is being done by an accountant, so it starts out on the (way) back burner. Then the sponsor and accountant are probably making decisions on contributions as late as possible (October) and not finalizing the val until then. So they think this particular participant's account is unknown until then when in reality it can be determined much earlier by allocating gains or losses when determined; additional allocations of contributions are not relevant to this participant's account. As suggested by JackS, they could pay the 2018 balance now and gains later and avoid some of that. If it's a large account relative to the rest of the plan, I would always recommend setting aside an estimated amount of cash so that market fluctuations (specifically a downturn) does not affect other participants. If the market goes up, the participant is SOL...a case might be made for some kind of fiduciary liability but it wouldn't be worth the effort/cost to pursue it. Bottom line, you are right that it shouldn't take so long and a lot of headache and hassles can be avoided by better administration.