Leaderboard

The story suggests someone used your work without the business courtesy of engaging your services or explaining why they weren’t. If you’re willing to speak with the certified public accountant, what else could you say beyond suggesting the CPA maintain her malpractice insurance, might want her own advice about whether to disassociate from further tax returns and other professional-conduct points, and might consider suggesting that the employer lawyer-up. Or if you are willing to offer services to support corrections, suggest that the employer’s lawyer engage you, to maximize evidence-law privileges for confidential communications. And you’d require a much-more-than-you-estimate advance retainer. Among other cautions, don’t you want to test whether the employer is serious about corrections?

318 doesn't apply to controlled group attribution. That's 1563. This is very helpful: LFG controlled group link

Without doing any research, I believe that it would be separate lookback years for the different plans. Does the PS/DB by chance use the calendar year election? That would at least make it easier to keep track of who is an HCE and who isn't, although it might potentially have other ramifications - ask the cash balance actuary!

Unless the IRS issues further guidance I would agree with you.

No and no. It's similar, I think, to an employee repaying a distribution overpayment from a prior tax year. IRS position is that the amount received (or made available) is taxable (compensation in this case) for such year and that anything that happens in a subsequent year does not change that. The person also received $X in taxable compensation from the employer before terminating which I think is not affected by cutting a personal check back to the employer. The person may be able to get some sort of personal miscellaneous tax deduction for the repayment (subject to those rules) but that isn't your concern, it's a matter for this person and his/her accountant.

1. No, but I can't see how it would help to have a component with only NHCEs; since each employee has to be assigned to exactly one component, it will just reduce the number of NHCEs in one or more other components which do cover HCEs and make it harder for those components to pass coverage. Maybe I am missing something. 2. If each rate group in each component is over 70%, then ABPT is not necessary.