Leaderboard

Merry Christmas - and can we please add BE SAFE to the list of phrases people really need to stop saying? My response to that is "My daredevil days are over."

Yeah, but that's 2024 if they're smart enough to only count the years after 1/1/2021.

There is also the new 500-hour rule from the SECURE Act. Long-term part-timers have to be allowed partway into the plan. If the sole eligibility rule is "1,000 hours within 6 months or within 12 months" then you would miss those people.

What is their reason? If you are not their employee, they should pay your business- whether that business is a sole proprietorship, corporation etc. You complete the W-9 and they pay based on the information provided on the W-9. Tell them you are registered with the IRS as an S-Corp, and therefore payment for work should be made to the S-Corp (unless your tax advisor says otherwise. Check with you tax advisor as this is a tax issue. ).

I don't think having an EIN for your sole proprietorship prevents you from applying the earnings paid on your 1099 under your SSN. Your Schedule C will have lines for both your SSN and EIN. Which would mean you have no other steps to take regarding the plan sponsorship.

Often though, the "plan B" eligibility provision, the 1000 hours in 12 months, requires the full 12 months to elapse like a traditional Year of Service requirement, so it's possible the guy who hits 1000 hours in month 8 doesn't come in until after the full 12 months elapse. So as CBZ said, definitely check what the doc says to that effect.

You can let them in after 6 months if they complete 1000 hours in 6 months, but you can't keep them out if they complete 1000 hours in more than 6 but within 12 months.

What Zeller said. Perfectly acceptable correction under EPCRS.

RMD's are not eligible for rollover, ergo are not eligible for conversion/in-plan rollover either.

Some plans’ administrators might use a disclosure regime conceptually like your description, but with different means, by following the Labor department’s rule for a participant’s, beneficiary’s, alternate payee’s, or other covered individual’s implied assent (by not generally opting-out) to notice-and-access electronic disclosures. Among many conditions, the regime requires that the individual furnished, or was assigned, an electronic address (which remains operable). https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-29/subtitle-B/chapter-XXV/subchapter-C/part-2520/section-2520.104b-31 If you consider it, get your lawyer’s advice about meeting the rule’s conditions and requirements.

Yeah. This should be fine.

Yes on one, no on two.

Is this a new plan? Could then, perhaps, start the deferral portion as of February 1.

Sounds like they applied the correction under Rev Proc 2021-30 Appendix B 2.07(4)

Depends on how the acquisition was structured. Your employer should have provided you a notice of what you can and cannot do. Also depends on how the acquisition was structured. You may want to request a copy of the summary plan description (SPD) which will tell you if you are eligible for an in-service distribution (e.g. based on age 59 1/2). If you are eligible for a distribution (because of age or details of the acquisition), you should seek the advice of a professional financial advisor, no one on this board can tell you if it is in your best interest to take a distribution. There are a lot of details that go into that decision.

I don't think so either. Those funds didn't belong to anyone, everyone in the DB was fully funded. Therefore, there is no spouse to attached those funds to.

I think the way it works is that, the grandparent's interest in A isn't attributed to the minor child, since minor child owns less than 50% of A. So minor child isn't owning 100% of company A, just 25%, and you could be in the clear.