I don't know what to make of this.  Client set up an LLC for himself.

He's also a partner in a larger company.  That LLC issued him a K-1 for his income, and then also issued his own separate (single member) LLC a K-1 as well for a separate source of income from the larger partnership.  It's that "smaller" LLC that sponsors his plans.

The first year, he had a Schedule C to reflect the payments from the smaller LLC to the individual.

Since then (the past 2-3 years), the income is not being shown as flowing through the smaller LLC - he just received it on a second K-1 issued by the larger company.  So I think that's wrong to use for purposes of funding his plans.

But - is it enough for the big LLC to pay the little LLC on that K-1, or does the little LLC then need to turn around and issue a Schedule C every year?  Or, is it enough that as the single member, the earnings on the K-1 (from big LLC paid to little LLC) enough to count as income for the individual himself?

We're trying to figure out if the CPA needs to re-address past years' tax statements, in terms of how the payments were reported, before we get into tracking what sort of benefit he's actually due under the DB plan.

thanks in advance....

--bri

We are planning on amending our plans in 2020 for the new hardship rules.  That includes the no more suspension of deferrals.

What happens is some takes a h'ship now?  Their suspension period would go until February.  Does the suspension just go away Jan 1?

Hi to All,

We have a 401(k) plan for a non-profit entity with a new comparability formula for the profit sharing.  The intention in the design was to have each participant in his own group and to vary the contribution level at will.  There are no HCEs and of course no "owners".  

Can the employer give 10% of pay to the 3 oldest employees and nothing to the 3 youngest employees?  Can the contribution be literally whatever they feel like giving to each person?

We are so accustomed to the world of small closely held companies that it's hard to think outside the parameters of normal non-discrimination testing. Our first instincts are to say "Oh no, you can't do that!" but perhaps you can!  Any thoughts?

Thank you as always.

I have a plan with a discretionary match that is calculated and deposited each payroll.     At the beginning of the year the board of directors elected to cap the match at 15% of compensation.      The payroll department didn't apply the 15% cap and 3 participants received excess match - 2 of them $4000 and $6000.         Is the cure for this error to forfeit the excess?    

Company A owns 20 other companies at 100% ownership. All 21 (20 plus company A) entities have their own separate plans with different record keepers, TPA's and financial advisers. No one has performed combined coverage testing for the past 15 years.  The plans vary from safe harbor to traditional 401k with profit sharing. All plans are small plans so on their own have not had an audit requirement. All plan year ends are calendar year.

Question: Is this an obvious VCP submission requiring them to go back and run coverage testing for X years? Or can this be self corrected? 

Thank you

If the employer over matched on deferrals because they got the formula wrong are the excess matching contributions fortified before ACP test is run or are they included in the ACP test? I read somewhere they are possibly excluded from the ACP testing and included in the general test. Yeesh. Any clarification would be appreciated, I feel like I'm making this more difficult than it actually is.

Anyone have a pipeline to the IRS on the likely date for approval of DC docs and the opening of the next restatement cycle? Is smart money still on 2021, or is there any likelihood of 2020? Would obviously make a big difference in our planning...

Group:

I may not state this properly so bear with me. 

Entity A, Inc. sells 100% of stock to an ESOP with name of 'A, Inc. ESOP AND PROFIT SHARING PLAN' in 2011.

ESOP files for EIN and uses such for all 5500 filings. 

Entity A is audited for tax year 2012 and 2013. Which resulted in a no change determination letter. 

Fast forward, Entity A ESOP is now under audit for same years (2012 and 2013) and all years  through 2017.

I'm coming in late to the proverbial game as 2848/attorney and client has already signed audit extensions prior to my involvement. 

Q: Are there any cited cases/internal revenue manual cites/other supporting sources, that stand for the proposition that the ESOP was effectively audited for 2012/2013 with these facts?  

I note there seems to be very little case law about whether or not these facts can support a collateral estoppel or res judicata argument. And it's usually not favorable to taxpayers. 

Thoughts and comments are appreciated. 

Thank you 

Joe Dadich, CPA, Esq. 

My uncle designated me as sole beneficiary of one of his bank accounts. His step daughter has POA (don't know what type). We live in California and the accounts are in a CA bank. Q: Can the step daughter change the beneficiary or close the accounts and take over the proceeds? My uncle is in a nursing home and starting to show signs of mild dementia but is still mostly aware and present. 

This is an old thread on the topic - does anyone have any more current insight? 

A plan sponsor is trying to get a contract with San Francisco - and would be subject to their equal benefits requirements.

Considering that a domestic partner cannot rollover money to their own IRA the way a spouse would be able to, I don't know how the plan sponsor can affirm that the distribution options are the same. They are not under current Federal tax law. As far as I can tell preemption applies, but is there something else I'm missing? And certainly step-children are not treated the same as regular children in retirement plans. Also the RMD upon participant death options are usually different depending on the type of beneficiary. 

Here is an except from the contract info page from the city / county:

Hi,

AN Employee terminated with an  ACRUED Benefit of $844. His DC account balance is 44,000. He is 45 years old. The 844 is due at age 62 (NRA). Since the AB of 844

is due at age 62, is it proper to discount the 844 (AB) TO HIS CURRENT AGE OF 45 (will use plan equivalence for this). This gives an accrued benefit of 263 at his current age of 45. Next, to convert the dc account to annuity based on the APR at his current age of 45, ie 235 monthly. And then finally to use the dc annuity  of 235 to reduce the AB of 265? Thank you very much

How would one go about calculating an RMD on a participant's voluntary account, since basis in the account has already been taxed?

We set up a traditional DB plan--not cash balance-- for a restaurant with 50 employees. We excluded bartenders and service people while covering the chefs, kitchen and dish washers and the vice-presiident of the business.  Though the plan  satisfies 70% coverage RPT and initially met the  40% participation rule, this year the minimum participant count is too low--39.2%. I am unclear how to fix this at minimum cost to client. Can I just cover 1-2 members of one of the excluded groups. Has anyone had this sort of problem and how was it fixed. Appreciate any thoughts on the subject. 

Plan currently provides SH 401(k) match contribution (100% up to 6%) on a payroll basis.  Can the plan be amended mid-year to reduce the match to 100% up to 4% prospectively for the rest of the year?

Under the proposed SECURE Act, RMDs will be limited to a 10-year pay-out for noneligible beneficiaries.  A life expectancy pay-out will still be available for eligible beneficiaries (spouse, minor children, disabled individuals, chronically ill individuals and those not more than 10 years older than the IRA Owner).  I am having trouble determining whether the current RMD rule that provides that if a non-individual beneficiary is named (estate, charity or non-look through trust), and if the IRA Owner dies before his/her required beginning date, then post-death RMD payments must be distributed within 5 years.  Under the SECURE Act, would this 5 year pay-out rule be increased to 10 years if a non-individual is the beneficiary?  Thanks.   

Can a hardship distribution be take from safe harbor source?  

If a participant in a Defined Benefit Pension Plan chooses to take a 5 year (60 month) term certain annuity, can those payments be directly rollover over to an IRA?  What if the participant is  over 70 1/2?

The office manager in a plan I administer (profit sharing/3% safe harbor) wants to be become an independent contractor paid via a 1099 instead of a W2 employee.  Nothing in her job would change, just the way she is paid.  I know this would make her no longer an employee, and she would no longer be able to participate in the plan, but not sure how to advise her on the myriad of other things it could affect. She is also the HR person, so I can't refer her to the HR dept. 

We use ftwilliam.com to produce our 5500's and Summary Annual Reports. In the General Information section of the SAR checklist, question 5 asks "Have all participants earned the right to receive benefits?" If you answer yes, it removes the "although not all of these persons had yet earned the right to receive benefits" language.

We're not sure how to answer this from a defined contribution plan perspective. Is this tied to whether or not everyone is fully vested, whether or not everyone is entitled to take a distribution from the plan, whether or not all of the participants listed in the count earlier in the sentence have a balance, or some combination thereof? If it's tied to whether or not everyone is entitled to actually take a distribution, it seems like there would be very limited circumstances when you would not include the language.

It's interesting that ftwilliam.com gives the option to include or exclude this language when the model notice in the DOL reg (§2520.104b-10) hard codes the language (i.e., doesn't provide for alternative language or qualify when you would or wouldn't use it like it does for other parts of the notice).

I'm inclined to just follow the model notice and include the language in all cases, but I'm curious as to what criteria others are using to determine how to answer this question?