Leaderboard

We treat these plans like any other - use our document, collect data, prepare a val, with or without tax return as needed. Yes there are some shortcuts - maybe a simple phone call to collect data, confirming no employees and income. We charge less than for a "regular" plan. But sometimes they are a timesuck because these are often people who think you can read their mind and can't be bothered to answer your data collection request. In theory, no "admin" is needed - just a simple doc and have the accountant calc the contribution and put it in, right? But we've seen accountants who think you can pay a salary of $100K to an S corp owner and max out (dollarwise) on contributions. And accountants who use their own software and don't know how 401(k) contributions work vs. profit sharing. Or we see here on the board where someone has been making Roth contributions and now wants to take a distribution but the money is all commingled and no one has been tracking it separately.

Obviously, if there's something due to an error WE made, we wouldn't bill! Other than that, yes, we are billing for our time, although sometimes you have to exercise some judgment depending on the client, and we can't always bill for all of our time. But we aren't giving away as much as we used to. Fixed typo.

I misread the question. I took it to mean that the participant had died, in which event the PPA of 2006 will enable a posthumous QDRO to be submitted and qualified. But Peter Gulia is correct that the estate of the Alternate Payee who predeceases the Participant is not "Alternate Payee" per ERISA § 206(d)(3)(K). A survivor annuity is only payable to an Alternate Payee who survives the Participant's death - be definition. This is not the situation addressed in the discussion on April 11, 2019. See .

I'm not sure I understand. The conversion will be to a sources that mirror's the characteristics of the original source. So if he could take in-service withdrawals of after tax contribution source, he can take in service withdrawals of roth converted after tax contribution source. That is you might need a separate ROTH source for each type of money that a participant may convert to roth. As for the taxation I think if he takes a later distribution from the roth source before age 59.5 you'll have some recovery of roth basis and some taxable piece based on the protated potion that is earnings. Unlike an IRA where you recover the ROTH basis on a FIFO basis, I think in qualified retirement plans you still have the protata method you need to use. Unless there was a change I missed.

Some lawyers have interpreted Pennsylvania’s Fiscal Code § 8.2 [72 Pa. Stat. § 4521.2] as the Commonwealth not providing a nonelective or matching contribution for a Commonwealth officer or employe, but not—by the enabling statute’s two sections [cited below] alone—precluding a political subdivision from providing a nonelective or matching contribution. See 72 Pa. Stat. § 4521.2(g) (including “nor shall the Commonwealth contribute to its deferred compensation program”). Here’s Pennsylvania’s enabling statute for governmental § 457(b) plans: 72 P.S. § 4521.1 https://govt.westlaw.com/pac/Document/NEEF65700343A11DA8A989F4EECDB8638?viewType=FullText&listSource=Search&originationContext=Search+Result&transitionType=SearchItem&contextData=(sc.Search)&navigationPath=Search%2fv1%2fresults%2fnavigation%2fi0ad7140b0000018c68930141e98d975f%3fppcid%3d6daf38e7a9864d17b11a10c8d1bc3a74%26Nav%3dSTATUTE_PUBLICVIEW%26fragmentIdentifier%3dNEEF65700343A11DA8A989F4EECDB8638%26startIndex%3d1%26transitionType%3dSearchItem%26contextData%3d%2528sc.Default%2529%26originationContext%3dSearch%2520Result&list=STATUTE_PUBLICVIEW&rank=1&t_querytext=deferred+compensation&t_Method=WIN 72 P.S. § 4521.2 https://govt.westlaw.com/pac/Document/NF25AB7B0343A11DA8A989F4EECDB8638?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)&bhcp=1. These are current through 2023 Regular Session Act 32. The hyperlinks above are to an unannotated (and unofficial) version of Pennsylvania Statutes. A researcher should read an authoritative text, read the annotations, and use a citator tool to look for court decisions and attorney general opinions that interpret the statute. (It has been many years since I last looked at the law on a question of this kind.) Consider that other Pennsylvania or municipal law might preclude, restrict, or constrain a political subdivision’s employer-provided contribution. Likewise, consider that a response to your query might vary with the identity of the particular political subdivision, its funding sources, its supervision from Commonwealth agencies and instrumentalities, its ordinances and other local law, its bargaining with labor association, and other facts and circumstances. Internal Revenue Code § 457(b)’s deferral limit applies to the sum of a year’s deferrals, including elective, matching, and nonelective deferrals. Nothing here is legal advice.

A few of things are glaringly missing. The article focuses on when the "employee contribution" (read elective deferral) is funded. The article says "you can set the amount you plan to contribute" but does not note that you have to set the amount by December 31st of the tax year. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2010-title26-vol5/pdf/CFR-2010-title26-vol5-sec1-401k-1.pdf The article focuses on W-2 reporting which is appropriate when the entity is taxed as an S-corp or C-corp, but I would say from my experience that most owner-only plans are sponsored by sole proprietors who more likely are reporting Schedule C income, or by partners who are reporting K-1 income. The article does not emphasize that if the tax return is filed or not extended by the original due date, then that blows up the opportunity to fund up to the extended deadline. Is the article wrong? - not necessarily. Is the article likely to mislead a reader whose situation does not match the articles underlying assumptions? - almost certainly.

I think you need to provide more details. If you are talking about an employer prefunding an employer contribution before any allocation conditions are met, the DON'T DO IT. Period. If the funds experience a loss, who suffers? If the funds have an investment gain (even interest), is that an additional contribution when allocated? If there is money left over because too many people don't meet the allocation conditions, how do you account for the funds (and it clearly can't go back to the employer). As far as how the funds are invested, they are plan assets. I would say "prudently" but would reiterate - DON'T DO IT.

If a might-be domestic-relations order is submitted, a plan’s administrator might evaluate whether the order’s would-be payee is an alternate payee within the meaning of ERISA § 206(d)(3)(K). I am unaware of any Federal court precedent that holds for or against treating a deceased nonparticipant former spouse’s executor or similar personal representative as an alternate payee within the meaning of ERISA § 206(d)(3)(K).

Thanks for your long answer. I recently had a battle with cancer, which I was not expected to survive. In fact, the surgeons have all expressed that they are amazed by not only my survival, but my level of recovery. Regardless, given the severity of the illness and certain permanent "effects", I am thinking I should at least look into the sale of my firm. This is not something I really want to do, but feel it is the responsible thing for both my family, staff and clients. Your detailed overview was very helpful. Thanks again!