austin3515

I assume you have an insurance license though, correct? We don't. Seems to me the HArtford should just have a web-site to do this...

Is there a web-site from The Hartford or Travlers, etc. that I can provide clients where they can fill out a short form on line and get a fidelity bond? It seems to me if it was that easy it would be easier on me instead of telling them to call their agent, getting them involved etc. I'm sure the agents would love me for it.

I notice that the last update to this page was in May 2013, so it seems this has been around for a while. We haven't heard anything yet but maybe they were just getting geared up.

By the way, you cannot ignore it of course. But then it is so ridiculously obvious that it does not merit any discussion, in my opinion. I mean, DUH.

I read it on the Kiplinger letter myself...

A client (and RIA) just told me Kiplinger sent out a mailing saying that the IRS will be matching the deduction for ER Contributions on the 1120's with the Er contributions on the 5500. Apparently differences of > $1,000 will receive a letter. Let's ignore for a moment the number of false positives cash basis/accrual will generate. Does anyone have any literature on this? An IRS announcement, or perhaps a link to the Kiplinger letter?

I assume rolling the $500K to an IRA would not help, but I think I would ask that question of someone in the know. There are a lot of alternative investment IRA providers, just not sure if the same PT rules apply.

I agree about firing it up right away. I've never told a client they have to adhere to the 30 day rule in year 1 because if you go before 30 days its facts and circumstances, and the plan having not been existence until now is certainly a relevant fact

It might be moot though if there is a single legal entity employing everyone. Unless the seller's plan was amended coincident with the transaction to exclude the buyer's employees then those employees would be eligible if they had met the eligibility requirements. This has nothing to do with 410b6c. Some plans will exclude employees acquired through a 410b6c transaction, but the employees being excluded would not be covered by this exclusion (i.e, because they are not the "acquired employees."). I am also troubled by the fact that the plan was adopted after the acquisition. Upon the acquisition, the sellers employees all have a distributable event because they had a severance from employment. We therefore always word these things that the transfer of sponsorship is coincident with the acquisition (assuming of course we knew before hand ). I have no idea what this means from a compliance perspective but it sounds problematic.

Assuming there is not currently a 401k? It was not mentioned, but I thought it an important clarification.

How much is Grandpa looking to loan? If $50,000 or less Grandpa should take a regular participant loan from his account (assuming it allows for participant loans and he is still working). What he does with the money is a moot point. He can then turn around and loan the money to his Grandson's company.

Well that's the best darn observation on this topic I've heard yet.

Because what you are saying is that all previous amendments would be reviewed in the process?

Tom, what part of the notice suggests no other changes are permissible? My opinion is that the IRS agrees with Kevin C and I (and others) wholeheartedly. And that fact alone has prevented them from issuing published guidance banning the amendments. Instead, they took the backdoor, merely inferring that anything other than the above stated changes would not be acceptable.

Can an employer restrict the availability of a payroll deduction IRA to a select group of employees? For example, office employees vs. manufacturing employees? My concern is that they will blow their ERISA exemption through use of discretion regarding eligibility.

Bless you, just what I was looking for. I agree, no average benefits test allowed.

Kevin C, I'm glad to know I am not alone. I have said on numerous other posts that the IRS has not in any written document banned all amendments. They have only deemed certain amendments to be ok, but not to the exclusion of any other. I do believe Sungard however when they say the IRS's position behind closed doors is that they don't want to see any amendments. But they also said "it remains to be seen whether or not they will enforce this interpretation. Kevin C and I both took the same position here: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/55034-amendment-to-safe-harbor-401k-plan/?hl=%2Bamendment+%2Bsafe+%2Bharbor#entry239595 Here is another one: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/54837-401k-safe-harbor-and-mid-year-changes/?hl=safe+harbor+amend+%22participant+directed%22 In the latter I gave the following list of amendments which I think should cause no trouble at all:

Business is making an unusual allocation. The allocation looks to an outsider to be more or less arbitrary. We have cautioned them extensively on deemed CODA's so let us leave that aside for purposes of this question. Each employee receiving a unique contribution has a very unique job description. For example, one might be VP Finance and the other is VP Marketing. Another is the receptionist, another a machine operator, and you get the idea. When all is said and done, my coverage ratio is just 62%. I say "we're using reasonable business classifications and therefore I am permitted to run the average benefits test." I know I can for nondiscrimination/rate groups. My question is regarding coverage. Appreciate your thoughts!

If I do the amendment, and the IRS fines them $10,000 because they added auto rollovers mid-year (like my example?), they're going to sue me. I suppose to your point I should tell them in my letter, "the IRS has taken a bizarre position, and solely because you would like to add automatic rollovers (scoundrel!) your plan could be disqualified if you execute this amendment. We suspect the IRS is continuing its crusade against republicans in all walks of life, knowing that small business owners (who this rule overwhelming discriminates against) are most commonly affiliated with the republican party."

Although I tend to think there really is not as much change as Sungard suggests (not including their informal conversations with the IRS). “Except as provided …, a plan will fail to satisfy the requirements of section 401(k)(12) … and this section unless plan provisions that satisfy the rules of this section are adopted before the first day of the plan year and remain in effect for an entire 12-month plan year. In addition, except as provided in [the exiting rules], a plan which includes provisions that satisfy the rules of this section will not satisfy the requirements of §1.401(k)-1(b) if it is amended to change such provisions for that plan year.

That is a fact and not an opinion. http://www.relius.net/News/TechnicalUpdates.aspx?ID=1020

Is there a listing of who the eligible employers are for a SEP? We're looking at a quasi-govt that has a SEP.

"I saw it as part of the IRS effort to locate non-filers. I'm sure they will process the new form with the same efficiency and accuracy they currently use for Form 5558." I was just thinking about this. Am I the only one who sees a flaw in mandating the filing of an obscure tax form such as this as a means of finding people who have not filed a regular normal annual filing??

Hilarious John, and very applicable.: "Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress; but I repeat myself."

But can someone explain to mean the purpose of this 8822b form? Why the #$@# can't the IRS just reference who signed the 5500 as plan administrator? http://www.winston.com/en/benefits-blast/deadline-looms-to-file-form-8822-b-to-report-a-change-in-your.html [secretly, I don't think I'm the idiot ]