austin3515

Does that corporation currently have a 401k plan? If so, then it's definitely out (in my opinion). If not, you could probably argue that it is OK, since that company could adopt it's own safe harbor plan.

One possible work around is to amend the plan year such that a short plan year ends, say June 30, and a new 12 month plan year beginning July 1.

Deferrals to SIMPLE-IRA's, SAR-SEPS and 401k's are all aggregated for purposes of 402(g),. Between all of them there is one 16,500 limit. From 402g: (3) Elective deferrals For purposes of this subsection, the term "elective deferrals" means, with respect to any taxable year, the sum of— (A) any employer contribution under a qualified cash or deferred arrangement (as defined in section 401 (k)) to the extent not includible in gross income for the taxable year under subsection (e)(3) (determined without regard to this subsection), (B) any employer contribution to the extent not includible in gross income for the taxable year under subsection (h)(1)(B) (determined without regard to this subsection), [SAR-SEP] © any employer contribution to purchase an annuity contract under section 403 (b) under a salary reduction agreement (within the meaning of section 3121 (a)(5)(D)), and (D) any elective employer contribution under section 408 (p)(2)(A)(i) [sIMPLE IRA's] As somoene else mentioned, no employer contributions count towards this limit.

Yes it's possible. You process just like any other rollover. The 1099 code is the same (G) but you need to enter the taxable amount of the distriubtion.

oops... Just ask them what to do their customer service is AWESOME.

On FT Williams software there is a box you have to check to idnciate that "this is a prior year filing." I had the exact same problem, and this fixed it. Also, we used Relius last year, and I think that if on the plan information screen you put 2011 in the "Filing for Plan Year" (or something like that) that this would work as well. Might want to submit an incident and ask whoever your vendor is, but there does need to be a way to tell your software what you are doing, so that EFAST2 can be alerted on how to process it.

Ours specicially excludes them from the Basi Safe Harbor MAtch only. It also clearly indicates that we're within the ACP Safe Harbor for all other matching contributions allowed under the plan. And again, I did hear from the document sponsor (Corbel) that this would work. I'm surrprised that you keep raising the safe harbor notice quesiton since I did comply with the SH Notice requirement, in which I am allowed to reference the SPD. So, assuming my document is drafted correctly (which it is), and assuming I sent out a SH Notice that complied with the regs (I need not go beyond that standard), then I'm troubled by where any conceivable pitfall may lie. And by the way, tell whoever that idiot is to get the heck away from your keyboard

When TAG and Tom Poje disagree, Tom Poje wins. I also submitted to Corbel and they agreed with Tom (and me). I think it's pretty widely accepted that TAG is not always right. QuirkyNerdyPensionGirl, you shouldn't give in so easily

I'd have a couple of concerns 1. if notice made no mention of discretionary match, I'd probably go thumbs down They had the SPD, and I referenced the SPD in my SH Notice, so this does not bother me. Also, they had plenty of incentive to defer, just to get the SH Match. 2. if document doesn't cap match at 4% of comp, or any particular amount of deferral, but rather simply says discretionary, I'd go thumbs down as well. I don't think you can simply say "Of course the match will be capped at 4%". I vaguely recall most of the restated documents I've seen specifically mention the 4%. We're using Corbel's PT, which asks us if we intend to use the ACP Safe Harbor. When we check that box, those provisions are all added automatically. With respect to your latter point, I forget now if those provisions need to be hard-coded into the document, or whether or not they can be applied operationally? Obviously my document has no allocation conditions on receiving the match.

This is not a safe harbor contribution. It is a matching contriubtion that is covered by the ACP Safe HArbor. There is a very important difference. In fact, my discretionary contributions do not have to be 100% vested when made, which is the hangup on using forfeitures for SH contributions.

Answer is yes, but it doesn't matter, becaise the whole basis for doing this is maintaining the "safe harbor only" status of the plan, thus preserving my th exemption.

LEt's say the SH Match excludes HCE's. Are the hce's elligible for a discretionary match without running the ACP Test? i.e., would the ACP Safe Harbor still apply to them? [edit: of course, I would apply all of the ACP Safe Harbor Rules; such as not going over 4% of pay]. In my situtaion, I am trying to eat through some forfeitures, and none of the non-highly's deferred. In fact only owners deferred.

Sweet, THANKS!!

Yes, they can take a distribution?

Johnny divroces Susan. Both are participants in the Plan. Johnny owns 100% of the business. 1) Can Susan take a distribution to the extent of her QDRO proceeds? All of the money came from Johnny's 401k balances. Neither one is over age 59 1/2. The document does say that QDRO's can get paid out "as soon as possible" (i.e., you don't have to wait until the participant terminates), but now it is the participant themselves who are not eligible. 2) We've usually treated QDRO's as in-service distributions, to add them back for 5 years for top-heavy. But that doesn't seem to apply to well here. Any help is appreciated...

I have the patience nor the desire to figure out why clients do what they do. The important thing is that they did

We need to do a 1099. We used FT for our fulfillment so we have no red forms. 1) Anyone know where to get a handful of red forms? 2) Would the IRS really reject if I sent in a laser printer version of this thing??

Interesting... I'm a convert. It's out

Everything I see references compensation paid "after severance from employment" 1.415©-2(e)

Can someone point me to a good sample qdro available on-line? I looked at the IRS's version, but it is far from a "true template." Apparently Florida has rules where you can divorce without attorneys so they are not using any attorneys at all.

Talk about a gotcha... I bet this is actually not that uncommon (though probably rare enough). Cash rich companies would rather not have to keep sending paychecks, and more importantly end the relationship, and often hand deliver the last check on the last day (especially if the last day is the day they are told!).

Let's say someone's last day is Friday, and on the day befpore (thursday) they get a check that includes a month of severance. Is it excluded or included? The money was received PRE-severance.

OK, so I know the 5500 instrucitons say "don't reprot aything on Schedule A that is already reported on Schedule C as indirect compensation." But am I correct that if I'm doing an S-F, I should include on line 10e (payments made by insurance companies) the indirect expenses paid by the insurance company (in this case Great West?).

I'm doing a little program, kind of a mail merge to do extensions. It doesn't matter if the 5558 is slightly off spec, correct? Visually you can barely tell, but if I hold up the pdf I printed from the IRS web-site, I find that they are slightly out of line.

Doctor A sells his dental practice in 2010. Doctor A buys the assets of another practice in the summer of 2011. There are 3 employees at this other practice, one of whom (believe it or not) worked for Doctor at practice A. Can we recognize service with Doctor A's OldCo when he sets up a plan an NewCo? This will bring the Doctor AND that one older employee from day 1. My question hopefully demonstrates that I am aware that I need to be wary of discrimination issues. The amendment will benefit 1/3 of the NHCE's, so it does at least benefit a decent percentage. But I did not see what the measure of testing was. Is it BR&F? It seemed to be based on facts and circumstnaces, whiuch for a 3 person plan I might be inclined to advise liberally (with ample CYA).