Can two companies be considered as performing a management function for a single client organization? Example:

Bob owns 100% of company A

Dave owns 100% of company B

Each owns 50% of company C

Company C is a materials broker. A and B perform the sales function for C and, receive all of their income from C.

Either A or B has the right to hire or fire from C.

I know this is not a controlled group, nor could it be an A-Org group since it is not a professional service company. I am less sure when getting into whether it is a B-Org group or a management function group. Opinions?

Hi. We have an employee that participated in our 457(b) Plan. She terminated employment in June of 2009. Upon her termination, she completed the form to defer distribution commencement until a later date. She selected the maximum deferral, choosing to receive her account at age 70 1/2. She now comes to us and wishes to receive distribution of her account now. She is age 62. Am I correct in my reading of Treas. Reg. 1.457-7©(2)(iii) that the law permits a change to a distribution election ONLY if the change pushes the distribution date further into the future and that a change accelerating the distribution date is not permitted?

Thanks for any help.

So we are terminating a PBGC plan and it's taking longer than we anticipated. The PBGC will grant extensions on the final distribution date when there are "compelling reasons" why the distribution deadline cannot be met. I don't want to say the "wrong" thing in my letter to the PBGC. Would the PBGC consider the following reasons to be compelling: delayed receipt of election forms, dealing with missing participants, and plan amendment, drawn out annuity search?

I'm struggling to find an outline of the new Estate & Gift tax limits for 2011. Can anyone help? I'll really appreciate it if you can direct me to a website. Thank you very much.

An employee is eligible for the first time on 8/1/2009 for the 7/31/2010 fiscal year 401k profit sharing plan. The employee makes no salary deferral contributions. The employer makes a contribution for the employee in January 2011 for the 7/31/2010 year.

Is the employee an active participant for w-2 reporting purposes for 2010?

WRERA eliminated the need to distribute gap period earnings on excess deferrals and contributions. Therefore earnings only need to be calculated for the plan year for which the contributions were made, correct? Is there an exception for plans that are daily valued? I have seen numerous articles saying that the elimination of gap period earnings only applies if a valuation date has not passes. Any assistance will be appreciated. Thanks

Our hypothetical employer just discovered that the 2009 allocation of its profit-sharing contribution (intended to follow cross-testing rules) was incorrect because it provided only 3% for each NHCE, and this was less than one-third of the allocation rate of the HCE with the highest allocation rate.

In a self-correction, must the employer reallocate the profit-sharing contribution it made, or may the employer pay another contribution and allocate it so that each NHCE gets one-third of the top HCE's allocation rate?

Does our range of acceptable corrections change if the employer discovers that six years' allocations are affected by the same error?

We took over admin of a plan that has late deposits and failed to correct ADP/ACP failures. The plan has about 50 participants. In using the VCP program, do they pay one $1000 fee for the multiple failures or do they pay $1000 for each failure. I think they just pay one fee but I have found nothing to confirm that is correct.

Saw yesterday that the IRS will be very substantially increasing audits of individual returns for 2011. So, to the tune of Jingle Bells:

Dashing through the snow

The audit's on the way

O'er the roads we go

Screaming all the way.

CPA's to bring

Tax returns not right

Oh what fun to dance on strings

The Service pulls tonight.

Oh, Jingle bells, audits smell

Auditor's not right,

Scarier than Hell

To think of

Jail cells tonight.

Here is a turkey recipe that also includes the use of popcorn as a stuffing ingredient. When I found this recipe, I thought it was perfect for people who just are not sure how to tell when turkey is thoroughly cooked, but not dried out. Give this a try.

8 - 15 lb. turkey

1 cup melted butter

1 cup stuffing (Pepperidge Farm is Good)

1 cup un-popped popcorn (Orville Redenbacher's Low Fat is best)

Salt/pepper to taste

Preheat oven to 350 degrees. Brush turkey well with melted butter, salt, and pepper.

Fill cavity with stuffing and popcorn. Place in baking pan making sure the neck end is toward the front of the oven, not the back.

After about 4 hours listen for the popping sounds.

When the turkey's ass blows the oven door open and the bird flies across the room,.... it's done.

A 25% owner of a company sells his shares in 2010 and becomes an "independent contractor". He performs his services at the company he sold to the other shareholders. The company performs real estate appraisals. The former owner happily does his job at his same desk and now wants to start an Owner's 401 (k) Plan for 2010. He has no W-2 income for 2010 from the company, just 1099 income.

Does this appear to be an Affiliated Service Group for 2010? It seems to be a classic example, unless it can be argued that the real estate appraisal company is not an FSO or he would not be an HCE of the company he sold in 2010 because he had no W-2 income for 2010. I appreciate any thoughts on this matter.

Looking for specific guidance on this - I would *assume* as there is no withholding, nothings *should* be reported on 945 pursuant to In Plan Roth Conversions, however one must never assume.

Has anyone seen any specific reference to 945 or other reporting on a plan level related to this?

Ok, its cold here in Florida and my brain is frozen.

Schedule C income = 200,000.

I used to take

200,000 * .9235 (I guess that is really 1 - .0765) = 184,700

lesser of this value or Taxable wage base * 7.65% [106,800 * 7.65% = 8,170.20]

comp in excess of TWB * 1.45% [77,900 * 1.045% = 1,129.55]

9299.75 for the FICA.

Beginning in 2011 the employee tax rate is 4.2%, how does this change the calculation.

Here's a new one to me. Would be grateful for insights/comments.

An employer's stock is all held by a holding company. (Holding company has not other assets).

Employer sponsors an unfunded top-hat plan (and has informally set aside some money with which to pay obligations under the top-hat plan, but this money is not held in a trust, and is subject to its general creditors).

Employer would like to "transfer" the liability (AND the money) to the holding company (and have the money used for another purpose).

Employer hopes to replenish its own informal funding for liabilities under the Plan, but, if an unexpected payment event occurs prior to this replenishment, employer is hoping not to have to pay under the Plan.

The issues I see here are that:

1. A plan is only 'unfunded' to the extent that any amounts related to it are available to the employer's general creditors, and that the money is not formal set-aside under the plan

2. The employer's transfer of the 'liability' to the holding company would not 'per se' "fund" the unfunded plan, but would also not relieve the employer of its obligation to pay under the plan. (Employer is hoping that by transferring the 'liability' to the holding company [and by amendment the plan to permit Board to do this], then if the holding company doesn't have assets to pay, then payments are not made).

3. My reaction is that the employer's assumption that employees may look to a certain transferred pool of money (only) as the source for their plan benefits is what, in fact "funds" the plan, and would make the plan subject to the substantive provisions of ERISA.

4. Employer can 'transfer' liability all day long, but if it still pays up when amounts are due (without regard to such transfer), then plan remains unfunded.

Anyone agree, disagree, see other issues?

Thanks!

We have an employee wanting to submit student schedules for 2 college age dependents for dental and vision.

We asked for the schedules after Open Enrollment and gave a deadline. We only e-mailed the employees and we are in Healthcare. Everyone does not check their e-mails. also, with this employee, we only asked for 1 schedule (not sure what happened there - but we would take one schedule because of this).

I think we should allow the add for both dependents and my co-worker disagrees. I think we should add them on since we will allow it as employees come in Janaury stating their students are just beginning school (as if they are new dependents) and we would not double check if we previously asked for schedules.

Does the IRS address this anywhere? What do you think?

Thanks

ok, I even added a few of my alternative answers.

hope this doesn't get me off the 'hate' list. The Grinch likes being on that list. :angry: :angry: :angry:

Our company has many different unions/levels-within-union that have different contribution rates for our insurance plan. Do we have to offer an employee the opportunity to change/drop their insurance? The deduction amounts do change but not by a huge amount. Example: employee might go from a 70/30 to a 80/20 split on their insurance. Is this considered a qualifying event?

Thank you all for the information and advice that you have shared in these boards. I have learned so much but still have several questions in regards to a situation that has arisen so many years after my divorce. I live in the Pacific NW.

My divorce was final in 1990. A QDRO was entered pursuant to my decree, and all of the orders in the decree regarding property division, 401k payment, child support, etc. were fulfilled, except for the provision regarding my pension benefits. My ex-wife was named as the AP in the QDRO, designated as surviving spouse with rights to my pension account, entitled to a payment of $400. plus per month.

In 1991, the QDRO was presented to my pension plan administrator, and failed. My ex-wife, her attorney, and I received a letter from the plan administrator that explained the reason why the order was not acceptable, with specific instructions on how the QDRO must be reworded in order to be accepted by the plan. No further action was made my my ex-wife or her attorney. In 1998, I again received court papers that notified me of another attempt to secure my ex-wife's right to her portion of my pension plan. A new order was entered, and the QDRO was presented for the second time to my pension plan administrator. Again, we all received a letter from the plan administrator as to why the QDRO failed. Turns out that the my ex-wife's attorney simply re-sent the original QDRO to the plan administrator without heeding or amending a single word of the instructions that the plan administrator gave her the first time the QDRO was rejected. Compliant me, worried that it was somehow my responsibility, worried about an expensive court battle, or possible judgments, I contacted the plan administrator, asking why this matter had not yet been resolved in seven plus years, and I sent my ex-wife and her attorney a detailed written explanation of how they should proceed in order to obtain her survivor's rights to my pension plan. Again, no word, no other action taken. Flash forward, 12 years later. Upon the heels of my ex-wife's divorce from her third husband; a short-term marriage, where she received nothing in terms of alimony or property division, I recently received a draft of legal paperwork from my ex-wife's attorney in yet another attempt to secure her rights to my pension. The difference, at this point, is that I have been remarried for 12 years, and I retired two years ago, fully vested in my pension plan, with my wife designated as my surviving spouse. Along with the "not yet filed legal documents and motions," was a demand letter informing me that we needed to get this QDRO business done, and that I "owed" my ex-wife an immediate payment of $10,000 plus for the retirement pension that I had deprived her of since my retirement. Given the information that I have found on this message board, I am now adverse to comply with their demands. I am also looking for advice on finding the best legal representation for this complex issue. Thank you so much.

We have been tentatively been retained to file delinquent 5500s for a company that went bankrupt and ceased operations in 2005. The last 5500 filed was filed for 2004. Three plans are involved, with over 120 participants. To make this a really good story, profit sharing plan assets were invested primarily in company stock. Just before the bankruptcy filing, the two trustees were terminated and paid out their account balances with assets other than company stock since the stock was despressed. You can guess the rest.

The trustee in bankruptcy has filed an action against the two former trustees to recover the distributions for the plan participants. We have been retained to file the delinquest 5500s. There plan/bankruptcy estate has sufficient assets to pay us, but not the $12,000 in DFVCP fees and the audit fees. Has anyone had any experience negotiating with the DOL regarding these fees and/or waiving the audit requirement? Perhaps the filing fees could be delayed until a settlement is reached with the former trustees, which looks likely. If we cannot resolve this, we'll probably walk away, to no one's benefit. Thanks.

We give a discount to participants who smoke but sign up for our stop smoking campaign. Any thoughts on whether a COBRA person also has to be allowed to sign up for the stop smoking campaign so they can get the discount? Thanks!