Leaderboard

I suggest that the plan sponsor use what I call a "normal form of business" procedure. What this means is that they should write out how and when SPD's are/ were given to Participants and to indicate that this is the procedure for use every time with this sponsor. I also always put a footnote on the SPD that reminds the Participant that he received this document when he was hired and that he may request and receive another copy at any time and that s/he may receive a copy of the plan document itself upon making a written request. Some clients like to have everyone attending an enrollment or education meeting sign that they were in attendance, but I worry that this is too subject to being faulted for omission for the one time that they forget to do this or the papers get "lost." PNJ

The situation under discussion is almost an exact match to the situation in TAM 9735001, which says amending the allocation formula after the end of the plan year would violate 411(d)(6) if anyone receives less under the new formula than they would have received under the old. It also says a formula change after the end of the plan year is analogous to a change in the conditions for receiving an allocation after they have been satisfied that also violates 411(d)(6).

Not this one!

Yes, it is required.

Just did! I took me a while to realize that you have to fill out both the post and poll tabs rather just one, but once I realized that it was easy to do and looks great. Thanks Dave

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!