austin3515

Did they say what the contribution limit is for these accounts?

It does impact for a small business owner who would otherwise sponsor a 401k plan but decides not to because of this other option. I have a friend who is a business owner who would do this in a heartbeat.

From the ASPPA PAC http://secure.elabs10.com/functions/message_view.html?mid=3011233&mlid=255706&siteid=2010000643&uid=f9b0e0fa57

In case you missed the State of the Union: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/01/29/nine-things-to-know-about-obamas-myra-accounts/ I was a very mediocre Obama supporter and sort of scoffed mildly at people who suggested maybe Obama wanted to take over every aspect of our lives. I suppose I am beginning to see it more there way. What an exceedingly bad idea...

I'm inclined to agree with Bird. Imagine for example they had written you must take "at least the minimum" - they didn't say that, they said you must take "the minimum" a term which is quite specifically defined. [As I indicated above I was originally trying to justify the answer I was looking for . The good news for those of us using the Corbel Docs, is that there is a simple way to make this happen. As for a discriminatory availability of installments/ISD's for the owners, to that I say "Hey, you had your chance when you were reviewing my pre-approved document. I have an opinion letter that says I meet all requirements of the code, I am merely operating in accordance with the plan terms." What a fascinating topic, A+ to whoever started it

Tom, I'm confused - you're suggesting the door is open for more, but you seem to have emphasized that part which says "the amount that will be distributed is" which seems to leave no room for increasing?

Permitted disparity at less than the wage base is why you still need to include it in the documents sometimes. We just send our PPA notices to the FBO account plans. I'm prepared to staunchly defend my self if it ever presents a problem that We of course send a statement to the FBO plans at year-end with their vesting. With respect to vesting, we update the vesting with every recordkeeper that we work with, Post PPA (actually 6 years post PPA, or 8 more??) I have a hard time believing that there is a recordkeeping platform that does not track vesting. Are you saying such a recordkeeper exists BG? P.S. I am glad everyone seems to be universally ignoring the three-times-as-silly requirement to disclose each individual security in a pooled plan. Talk about a non-starter. [ok, I know some of y'all are doing it].

Found it. For those of you using Relius Documents, it's included in the text that pops up when you click on the little I in a blue circle that's found on all/most questions. You are no Lame Duck in my opinion. This was huge, thank you very much.

I do find it very interesting indeed. Where do I get that document?

I know it's not more than the life expectancy because it is more than the RMD. I didn't get that specific in my quesiton. I did submit to Corbel, but I hope I get more interesting responses! Someone advised me that I too have been part of the no-camp in the past and had some strong arguments in support thereof; but as I explained, objectives often impact analysis. Perhaps it shouldn't be the case but isn't that a tenet of the legal profession? (not that I practice law, I do not, but it seems arguing both sides of the coin is a skill and not a character flaw )

Corbel PT 401k. Participant is 80 and minimum distribution will be $50,000 for 2014. Can this participant take $6,000 per month until the account balance is depleted (i.e., more than the "minimum")? I say yes because the a) refers to the "minimum" required distribution, and b) we did elect that installments are allowed with respect to minimum distributions. So while we do not want installments available for anyone, if Grandpa wants them, we are ok with that. It is not eligible for rollover because it is substantially equal installments over more than 10 years (in this case, it is 20 years).

Since the question is subjective, that seems like a reasonable answer absent anything glaring. If you gave someone a raise based on merit, that is not an unusual adjustment, IMHO.

Also, I think that for top-heavy purposes, even if it was a plan termination/rollover, you still need to include the rollovers in the top-heavy ratio. I almost fell out of my chair when I read that in the EOB two weeks ago.

"I'm not following why the exclusion your client wants wouldn't be considered as an exclusion primarily based on service. Non-shareholder physicians who regularly work at least 40 hours/week would be eligible. Non-shareholder physicians who regularly work less than 40 hours/week would be excluded. The only difference between the two groups is their hours/week. To me, that sounds like employees being excluded based on service. " Yes, I think that was why I asked the question in the first place. I agree, so does TAG, etc. I like the idea of having the part-timer be hourly very very very much...

Does the employer desire to exclude all non-shareholder physicians, or only those of them who work less than 40 hours a week? Just those under 40 Are all of the full-time non-shareholder physicians highly-compensated employees? Are some of the part-time non-shareholder physicians non-highly-compensated employees? There is just one, an NHCE. Although I didn't think it mattered, unless you are suggesting that I just not give them an allocation if they were HCE's--I had thought of that too, but the plan is a 3% SHNEC). Because they are part-time they will be under 115,000 but over 1,000 hours.

Can I exclude Non-Shareholder Physicians who regularly work less than 40 hours per week? It's not an exclusion based on primarily on service so I wasn't sure if this might be an out.

That IS an interesting twist...

It's all in a word... I totally agree with you.

Partner in a Partnership has SE Income of $200K before deducting his $50,000 PS contribution. CPA wants to deduct the 50K in the year funded. Does that mean that for testing purposes I get to use $200K for nondiscrimination testing (only a 25% contribution vs. a 33% contribution)? Or let's say the Plan has a 3% Safe Harbor Contribution only. Will the owner get 3% of $200,000 instead of 3% of ($200,000 - Safe Harbor)? In year, it might well pay to take the deduction in year 2. Is there a requirement that Earned Income be reduced for the current year contributions?

Not rare at all. The only additional expense for splitting is a base fee of $2,000 (and that's being generous to my industry!). So by my calculation the savings is $8,000 not counting the internal burden on the client.

Who loves the fact that you have to scroll way off to the right to see the plan year end now?? Couldn't they make it fit in the window?? Unbelievable...

I don't think the DOL will buy the argument that paying for an audit is a fiduciary breach under any circumstance. Certainly if plan assets are not adequate it would be a breach to use plan assets to pay the fees, but the DOL would say the sponsor has to pay. What I'm saying is, if you're going to do this, have a good reason other than "we're trying to avoid the audit."

The catch-22 of course is that the partner who would deposit the money on January 5th may as well deposit on December 25th thus avoiding the need for the election.

http://www.relius.net/News/TechnicalUpdates.aspx?ID=1010 Just curious if anyone read this article and whether or not they were very concerned about this as it relates to the small partnerships with 2 to 5 partners or so. I get it that PriceWaterhouseCoopers better pay attention to this rule, but it seems like the small guys should be essentially immune from this rule since they are only offending against themselves. One thing I suppose I could be better about is telling people the contributions are due no later than shortly after the date you file tax returns for the year. I suppose that is the verifiable date on which at the latest you knew the distributive share. I dare say I am one of those who casually referenced the "due date of your business tax returns."

Take a look at these Q&A's by Derrin Watson who is the guru on all this stuff. HE literally wrote the book... (Who's the Employer) http://benefitslink.com/modperl/qa.cgi?db=qa_who_is_employer#.UsmJ36Qo4eF especially #323: http://benefitslink.com/modperl/qa.cgi?db=qa_who_is_employer&n=323#.UsmKC6Qo4eE