austin3515

I was speaking more general in nature. But in your case, if your document was made effective October 1, 2011 (I know you used 1/1 for an effective), I'm suggesting that the owner comes in on 10/1/11 in spite of the fact that the next entry date is not until 1/1/2012. I just looked at our Corbel document and there is no special language regarding plan entry dates for newly effective plans. This supports my conclusion, because I think if such language was required to bring the owner in on 10/1/11, Corbel would have added it by now.

My experience is that sound logic does not impress the DOL. Good luck gettign them to change their minds on anything but blatant factual errors. They are "Investigators" after all, and at least in my neck of the woods, they treat you like a criminal for the most minor of transgressions.

Plan Entry Dates only apply to people who would not have otherwise entered before. So anyone who satisfed eligibility and passed the entry dates in a prior year would be eligible from day 1. To me, it does not seem appropriate to suggest that if you set up a new plan effective 10/1, with semi-annual entry dates, that no one is eligible for the Plan on account of that, if people have (for example) 10 years of service. It just seems incredibly obvious (even if not explicitly stated) that they would be eligible on the effective date of the plan.

I need a provider that will open an account for one participant and allow for an advisor. I'm hoping it will be under a custodial account arrangement...

Austin: What do you do? Response: I develop web-applications to automate telecommunications background flux capacitators. What do you do? Austin: I work with retirement plans. REsponse: Oh, do you have any investment tips? Austin: No, I handle the compliance./ REsponse: Oh. Well nice to meet you. OK, not that bad, but pretty bad!

Just that I find something "so cool" where if I told the story at a party, I'd be standing in a room by mysefl...

OMG that is so cool I am such a loser...

The withholding rules on distributions are insane... I can't believe that you can't elect to have MORE than 20% withheld if you want to without filling out some other tax form.... Fiduciary, some forms from some providers already do allow that. My experience is that most people skip on the withholding. They want as much money as possible...

Gotcha. I didn't bother clicking the link, because I knew enough to avoid the mistake Thanks for the info though!! The IRS does have some gems on its web-site. This page is definitely one of them!

Hmmm... So you "accidentally" set up a neew plan and all you do is suspend contributions to the SIMPLE? Seems too good to be true. Also, in my situation it wouldn't be so much a mistake as a deliberate course of action. We'll start up on 1/1/2012

Are people aware that there was 5500 filing relief until 10/31 for 5500's? This is the ASPPA ASAP, if you have access to it. More of a public service announcement. http://www.asppa.org/document-vault/pdfs/asaps/open/11-28.aspx

How do you discontinue a SIMPLE IRA as of the end of a calendar year? Client is starting a 401k with us 1/1/2012.

I had to look up pluperfect in wikipedia, but I think you're message is clear even if you don't know what it means The pluperfect (from Latin plus quam perfectum more than perfect), also called past perfect in English, is a grammatical combination of past tense with the perfect, itself a combination of tense and aspect, that exists in most Indo-European languages. It is used to refer to an event that had continuing relevance to a past time. Comrie[1].64 classifies the pluperfect as an absolute-relative tense because it absolutely (not by context) establishes a deixis (the past) and places the action relative to the deixis (before it). In the sentence "A man who for years had thought he had reached the absolute limit of all possible suffering now found that suffering had no limits, and that he could suffer still more, and more intensely" (from Victor Frankls' Man's Search for Meaning), "had thought" and "had reached" are examples of the pluperfect. They refer to an event (a man thinking he has reached the limit of his capacity to suffer), which takes place before another event (the man discovering that his capacity to suffer has no limit), that are still relevant at the time of the later event. Because that second, subsequent event is itself a past event and the past tense is used to refer to it ("a man...now found"), the pluperfect is needed to make it clear that the first event (reaching the limit) has taken place even earlier in the past.

http://www.irs.gov/instructions/i1099gi/ar02.html#d0e1347 The site from Ft. William (no s on the end . Says the only reason you would need an EIN is if you sponsored a Keogh plan. I thought Keogh plan's didn't even exist anymore...

For example, a sole proprietorship or self-employed farmer who establishes a qualified retirement plan, or is required to file excise, employment, alcohol, tobacco, or firearms returns, must have an EIN. Interesting - but it seems to be a moot point if there is not a single use for it?

Where have I been hiding? Ouch... I'm not suggesting using a SS# for any sort of a 5500, EZ or otherwise. My qiestopm was only about 1099 reporting. Actually, FT Williams did respond and said that somewhre in the instrucitons it does mention that you can use a SS# in place of an EIN for a Schedule C entity. That being said, I have already begun the process of getting an EIN because I dodn't like the idea of both the payer and the payee having the same id. Just to make sure I undertand what everyone has been saying though: Schedule C business with a solo 401k that has less than $250K in assets and has never had any distributions. Is there a REQUIREMENT that either the plan or the employer have an EIN?

If that's a requirement than 85% of my plans have a problem. If you're at John Hancock, what need could there be for a plan EIN? The only reason for a plan EIN is if you want to preserve your monthly deposit status for remitting withholding (i.e., if the employer EIN requires semi-weekly deposits).

No EZ is being filed, less than $250K of plan assets. You nver "need" a separate EIN for the trust. You can always run reporting on the employer's EIN.

Can you use the owner's SS# as the employer's EIN if they do not have an EIN? It’s a small solo 401k plan. The 1099 is for the owner and is being issued by the owner. There is no withholding or anything.

Solo plan had an eligible employee for 2010 and 2011 and that's it. Assets currently <250K. 1) I'm marking the s-f as a first return reprot. Anyone think I'll get a letter from the DOL asking where last year's 5500's are? Anythin I can do to prevent it? 2) When I lose the employee, I'll be over $250K, so still need to file the EZ. I think that's a good thing because when the DOL writes me looking for the 2011 filing, I can produce the EZ (I'm assuming the DOL will have no record of that). Anyone have any other tips? I'm srt of resigned to the fact that I will be getting letters from the DOL/IRS on this...

Just to clarify, it's not that I would ever consider such a ridiculous request, but I'm curious to know the rules that are applicable here.

OK, but let's say you're not an ERPA or anyone else enrolled with the IRS. Just a regular Joe TPA. Your client tells you not to disclose a Prohibited Transaction on a schedule G on the 5500 (even though it obviously was a PT). I'm looking for the rule that says as a paid preparer, it's against the rules to comply with suich a request.

I know that all applies to ERPA's (like me ) but I thought there were also rules for even those who were not registered. This seems to refer only registered tax return preparers. I thought that 5500 preparers were exempted from registering now?

Now we're talking So I can amend the plan to reactivate the ADP test for 2011, I have until the end of the year. Still owe the SH Match, although I could probably stop the match "today" with 30 days notice.

Kevion, I'm still stuck on the fact that I'm not failing a test, I have a plan document problem. From the reg: (2) Scope of corrective amendments. For purposes of satisfying the minimum coverage requirements of section 410(b), the nondiscriminatory amount requirement of §1.401(a)(4)–1(b)(2), or the nondiscriminatory plan amendment requirement of §1.401(a)(4)–1(b)(4), a corrective amendment may retroactively increase accruals or allocations for employees who benefited under the plan during the plan year being corrected, or may grant accruals or allocations to individuals who did not benefit under the plan during the plan year being corrected.