Leaderboard

There is a requirement for a separate accounting of contribution sources such as pre-tax elective deferrals, Roth elective deferrals, match contributions, employer contributions, rollover contributions and after-tax contributions (to name a few), but there is no requirement to open separate trust accounts or sub-accounts for each source.

IRS Publication 1635 does a decent job explaining the use of EINs. See https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1635.pdf Plans do not get EINs. A Plan Sponsor gets an EIN. Each plan that the Plan Sponsor sets up gets a unique Plan Number (e.g., 001, 002,... 501, 502...) The pairing of the Plan Sponsor's EIN and PN creates a unique identifier for each plan. If the Plan Sponsor is designated as the Plan Administrator, there is no need for the Plan Sponsor to get another EIN for its role as Plan Administrator. If someone or some group separate and apart of from the Plan Sponsor is designated in the Plan Administrator, then that someone or group should get its own EIN. This may be an individual or a committee or a professional services firm. This EIN will not be an identifier of any of the plans the Plan Administrator serves, and the Plan Administrator does not have to get a separate EIN for each plan they serve. One way to look at it is the Plan Administrator's EIN is like a social security number for the Plan Administrator - it is a unique identifier for Plan Administrator and not the plans the Plan Administrator serves.

These above comments and observations are accurate. Whether or not to have an audit for a plan year where it is not required is a business decision for the plan sponsor after taking into consideration the potential of returning to the plan being required to have an audit. One factor to take into consideration when the expense of the audit is being paid from the plan. Consider whether it is appropriate to charge the cost of a plan audit to the plan if an audit is not required.

The owner should sign a form electing an in-plan conversion of $x and indicate which source is being converted if there are multiple. It's possible your document provider has model forms you can use, ours does. A 1099-R should be issues for the transaction. Ideally I'd like to have it transferred to another sub account at Schwab so it's clear, but you can "lump it one in account" if your on paper tracking is excellent and beyond IRS audit reproach.

Not! Those of us on the admin side have learned to take what advisors say with a grain of salt, or many grains. Often wrong but never in doubt. You can (should) terminate the SIMPLE but it's ok to leave it alone. Those accounts are essentially just IRA accounts with special funding rules. They are controlled by the employees and you can't force them to "merge" anyway.

For plans that aren't at recordkeepers, the trust for that plan quite often DOES get an EIN to use to identify assets and to use when paying people out for tax deposits and 1099 reporting. With independent paying entities providing distribution services, it's becoming less common but we still use it pretty frequently.

fmsinc is 100% correct. However, in addition to his/her advice, there are ways to delay taking the distribution, if you plan allows it. Under the rules for "subsequent deferral elections," you can (if your plan allows) defer the date you are to receive a distribution as long as: (1) you make the subsequent deferral election at least a year prior to the date the distribution otherwise would have occurred, and (2) you delay your distribution at least 5 years from the date the distribution otherwise would have occurred. The above is a very general description of the subsequent deferral election rule, and there are lots of ins and outs. To summarize: (1) fmsinc is right -- if you receive the distribution, you are going to be taxed. You cannot further delay taxation. But, (2) there are ways (see above) that you can delay receiving the distribution, which would further delay taxation.

I think truphao is correct. But I'd also check the document language that coordinates 416 and confirm that it only gives him 3% and not 5%.

I think Joe gets only 3% rather than 5% in yuor example. If I recall correctly the regs refer to "participation" or "accrual of benefit" concepts. I would reread 416 regs Q&A Part M?

A 401(k) plan can be designed to allow investment in individual stocks. It depends on the product that the provider is offering. Plans with fewer assets and fewer participants tend to have fewer options and less flexibility because they cannot support the related greater administrative complexity and attention - or greed of the provider, depending on your point of view. This is a subject that an adviser should cover. The first questions should be about what you want or are trying to accomplish.

Thanks, but I actually was referring to the Plan Administrator, not the Plan itself. The Plan Administer also applies for its EIN on the SS-4 (type of entity on Line 9a would be "Plan administrator"). I am not clear if a Plan Administrator needs an EIN for each plan that for which they are the Plan Administrator. Or if the Plan Administrator only obtains one EIN and uses it for each of the plans it administers. The reason I question it is that when filing the SS-4 online and selecting "Plan administrator", it does not even ask for the name of the Plan, just the name of the Plan Administrator. The IRS was unable to provide assistance, and our CPA was unsure.

Well then it's a GHP subject to COBRA, and the employee has experienced a loss of coverage triggered by termination of employment. That's a COBRA qualifying event whereby all the usual COBRA rights apply.

Right, but they should also consider the cost of going back and forth. Lets say that 2022 was audited but not 2023. They now need and audit for 2024. Guess what year the auditor will need to audit anyway in order to state that the 2024 BB is correct? 2023... I have had this discussion with several auditors, and some said they would be willing to do a simplified review (less expensive, maybe half?) in off years to keep the engagement rolling. This would make it easier for years they need to audit, since there would not be an interruption during off years. Some auditors may even reject the client if its not an ongoing engagement... so that's something to consider as well before saying why pay anything for off years.

How is the adviser, or her affiliates or friends, being compensated with respect to your new 401(k) plan? If it is based on assets under management, you would understand why she would want the IRA assets in the fold. Also, there are some providers that have a minimum threshold expectation of volume before accepting a small plan because they get compensated based on assets, such as 12(b)(1) fees. But you should have been told all of this in contemplating the arrangement.

For this to work, the OP would have to completely understand what they're saying and I doubt that would be the case. OP, you need to bite the bullet and hire an ERISA attorney or an experienced TPA to fix the error. This isn't a minor error. It's a big error that potentially involved a lot of tax deductions and you screwed it up by trying to DIY.

Without the details on the actual coverage at issue here, I'm assuming this is some type of expat group health plan maintained by a U.S. company for the benefit of employees working abroad. In that case, all the standard COBRA rights and obligations apply. This will be handled in the same manner as a U.S. employee who experiences a COBRA qualifying event under the domestic GHP. The only way you would avoid COBRA obligations would be if “such plan is maintained outside of the United States primarily for the benefit of persons substantially all of whom are nonresident aliens.” For example, if the employee were covered under a plan primarily designed for residents/citizens of that foreign country to which the employee is assigned. In that case, the plan would not be subject to ERISA/COBRA. But based on the way you're approaching this, I doubt that's the situation here. ERISA §4: (b) The provisions of this title shall not apply to any employee benefit plan if— (1) such plan is a governmental plan (as defined in section 3(32) [29 USC §1002(32)]); (2) such plan is a church plan (as defined in section 3(33) [29 USC §1002(33)]) with respect to which no election has been made undersection 410(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 [26 USC §410(d)]; (3) such plan is maintained solely for the purpose of complying with applicable workmen's compensation laws or unemployment compensation or disability insurance laws; (4) such plan is maintained outside of the United States primarily for the benefit of persons substantially all of whom are nonresident aliens; or (5) such plan is an excess benefit plan (as defined in section 3(36) [29 USC §1002(36)]) and is unfunded.

A. It's after the termination date so no new contributions should be allowed. B. As Bri notes, the only "personal contribution" (huh?) in this scenario would be an after-tax contribution, which apparently is not permitted and often problematic. C. I doubt the participant asking has a clue about it and are likely asking about a tax-deductible contribution of some sort. This should be squashed. Caveat: A self-employed person (sole prop or partner) can make contributions from his or her own funds. If it is the/an owner asking, then it might warrant more thought, although the term date has passed.

Update After enduring the stress for almost a year of getting letters from IRS saying we are working on your case but in the meantime pay us 150k for each year from 2013-2015 plus thousands more in additional interest each month i received a 3064c letter saying no further action is to be taken for tax years 2013-2018.The problem is my penalty relief request was for 2013-2020.I have not received any previous CP notices about 2019-2020- only 2013-2015 were an issue. Should i be concerned about this? Years 2013,2014,2015,2016,2017,2018,2019,2020 were noted separately on penalty relief transmittal however on the 1500.00 check i put check was for penalty tax relief year 2013-2020.Not sure if not listing each year separately on check would cause an issue.