Leaderboard

no

It's not a requirement, it's a "deemed to satisfy" thing. I wouldn't hesitate to amend and do a new notice; I mean good grief, a notice should not entitle someone who is not in the plan yet to anything.

After the first couple of paragraphs I was confused by who you meant when you said company and client etc. Can you add names like Old Co and New Co for clarification? Because I've worked on these situations lots of times. Sometimes Old Co keeps the plan going. Sometimes New Co takes over sponsorship. Shouldn't be an issue either way.

A. Name one or two that will do that. All RKs I know refuse to deal with participants except in rare cases. B. If you don't make payments thru payroll they're generally not going to be made at all.

I happen to have some more experience dealing with full-time life insurance salespersons who are classified as statutory employees. In weighing the factors for classifying workers as employees versus independent contractors, full-time life insurance salespersons who are statutory employees must satisfy many of the factors leaning toward independent contractor status, except that the service contract contemplates that substantially all of such services are to be performed personally by the contract for such insurance company and such individual does not have a substantial investment in facilities used in the performance of such services. As expected, Peter has accurately quoted the relevant sections of the Code subjecting such individuals to FICA and permitting such workers to be covered as an employee under certain employee benefit plans. Basically, such an individual is a hybrid between a common law employee and an independent contractor with respect to the entity hiring him or her. I am also in agreement with Peter's conclusoin that such individuals do not need to be covered under a plan

If it is eligible for rollover then yes you need a Special Tax Notice. So things like annuity payments, hardship distribution, RMD then no. Otherwise for most distributions I can think of, yes. I may be missing some special cases.

Years ago, one ERISA attorney said that step-children are NOT attributed ownership. If adopted, they are attributed ownership.

I don't think you're going to find it in black and white anywhere, but it comes from the definition of deferrals. Only deferrals can be classified as catchup. In order to be a deferral, the amount has to have been payable to the employee as cash, if not for the deferral election. If the amount exceeds your earned income, then it wouldn't have been payable to you in cash, hence it couldn't be a deferral.