austin3515

Take a look at a similar post which as of right now is immediately below this one! Courtesy of BTG. http://www.irs.gov/retirement/article/0,,i...tml#termination I was having trouble with the link, so here it is: When can an employer terminate a SIMPLE IRA plan? Other than initial establishment, SIMPLE IRA plans are maintained, or not maintained, on a whole-calendar-year basis. Once started for a year, a SIMPLE IRA plan must continue for the entire calendar year, funding all contributions promised in the employee notice. An employer may terminate a SIMPLE IRA plan prospectively, beginning with the next calendar year, after the employer has informed employees that there will be no SIMPLE IRA plan for the upcoming year. Example: If in 2007 an employer decides to terminate its SIMPLE IRA plan as soon as possible, the employer must inform employees within a reasonable period of time before the 60-day election period ending on December 31, 2007, that there will be no SIMPLE IRA plan for 2008. For 2008 the employer may establish and maintain another kind of qualified plan for its employees and, if this other qualified plan is not operative in 2009, re-establish a SIMPLE IRA plan for 2009.

Let's say the employer is not dissolving but just in bad financial shape, and looking to cut costs. Can the SIMPLE IRA be terminated mid-year?

Absent something in the document that makes it due sooner, I would think (generally) the tax due date would be the only relevant date. So if you usually make your match a week after payroll, and one pay-period you make it two weeks later, you're still OK. Or if management decides to fund the match once a month, also OK. In EPCRS though, I believe that if you accidentally omit an eligible employee from getting the match, if the match would have been funded each pay-period that you need to give them lost earnings. Can anyone confirm? So I wouldn't go so far as to say lost earnings are NEVER needed.

OK Fine, so I'll amend the document to limit 401(k) for the owners to $.01. Are you happy with this plan design now? If so, we're literally debating over a penny.

But the reality is, a) this is an EXCELLENT plan design in certain situations b) There is an excellent case that it is legit. Also, Corbel's document (as an example) does not say "limit must be greater than 0%." which I think the IRS should have insisted on if this was going to be a problem...

Taken from EOB: Caution: example withdrawn from regulations. It should be noted that, when the catch-up regulations were in proposed form, there was an example exactly on point, where a plan set the plan-imposed deferral limit at 0%, but also included a catch-up provision. This example was absent from the final regulations issued under IRC §414(v). Treasury officials have not discussed the reasoning for removal of this example, or whether it represents a decision by the Treasury that a 0% deferral limit is improper, or that they simply didn't want to promote such a plan design by way of a regulatory example. Clearly, a plan could set $1 as the deferral limit and there would be no question it is acceptable, so setting a $0 limit shouldn't make a difference. Some would argue that with a $0 limit, the plan really doesn't have a 401(k) arrangement. But that argument fails to recognize that, even with a $0 limit, those employees who are catch-up eligible could make elective deferrals, so the 401(k) arrangement is still available, just not to all eligible employees. Personally, I'm comfortable with anything Sal is comfortable with. In addition, I am also comfortable withy any Tom Poje is comfortable with

10 to 1 the next paragraph says you should add back pre-tax defrrals under 401(k), etc. So you could either: 1) Start with box 1 and add back 401(k) deferrals and 125 contributions. OR 2) Start with medicare wages and add back 125 contriubtions (125 deferrals reduce Medicare wages).

Got it, Thank You!

Create a plan imposed limit to limit deferrals of owners to 0% of pay. If there was no 401(k) before, use PY testing, and then they can contribute 5% of pay PLUS $5,500. Then, on the first day of the next plan year, add the plan imposed limit of 0% on the owners.

Does anyone have a link to a good web-site that tells you when tax returns are due? (or in particular, the funding of employer contributions). My understanding is that they pushed back the partnership return due date to 9/15 for calendar 2008 tax years. Can anyone verify/send out a link?

It's not so much relief as complete and total elimination. Just signed into law yesterday - no RMD's for 2009. Somebody get me a tissue A 4/1/09 RBD is a 2008 RMD, and there is no elimination of 2008 RMD's. Same logic applies in reverse to 4/1/2010 RMD's, only in reverse.

Bird - I think one of the new rules for VS documents is that the sponsor can amend on behalf of its adopters - do you agree? That;'s my recollection from Corbel's EGTRRA Document class. I have a question though: What if we signed up to sponsor our own prototype, but just use the Corbel-sponsored VS check the box document. Would Corbel be responsible for executing snap-one regulatory update amendments (except that we would obviously need to be distributing copies to our adopters)?

We use documents from a major provider. As most of you know the differences between prototypes and the check the box volume submitter documetns have diminished signficiantly now that a) PT's can use cross-testing, and b) VS documents can have TPA initiated regulatory amendments. So if a) prototype has less flexibility than the vs (i.e., limitations on # of allocation groups), b) the pricincing is essentially the same, then why would anyone opt to use the prototype (other than branding). Or is branding the primary reason? Is there anything a prototype can do that a VS cannot?

Does anyone know where that table of permitted disparity factors can be found in an official format (i.e., for imputing disparity on an allocation rate)? I'm tlaking about the one that gives a disparity factor depending on the combination of the Plan;s NRA and the participan's SS Retirement Age.

I'll add another wrinkle - if, as Tom suggested, discretion is desired, then if the Plan is top-heavy, make sure the owner's/officers (i.e., keys) don't do any 401(k) until the decision has been made. If the any keys do more than 3% of 401(k) and then they opt not to make the safe harbor non-elective, then the top-heavy minimum will apply anyway, which is the same 3% of pay (basically), but the owner gets no exemption from the ADP test. Those dreaded top-heavy rules...

It seems strange to limit someone's 401(k) based on the prospect of a DISCRETIONARY contribution, just because you've always done one in the past. If the Plan has a fixed contribution, I couldn't agree more; but if its discretionary, I think it would be inappropriate to limit the deferrals.

1) The 100% tax basically never applies. Take a look at the defintiion of "taxable period" - at first read you assume it is a 12 month period, but it is actually determined based on the relevant facts. I was hung up on this myself at one point, but if you read the 5330 instructions carefully, and in particular focus on the taxable period definition you'll see what I mean. 2) See the following example (assume 6% interest, and assume that the late deposits were due on 1/1 and paid on 12/31): 2004 Late Deposits 2004: $10,000 is late, lost interest is $600. 2005: Lost interest from 2004 was $600, which is now worth $636 (600 x 1.06). 2006: Total lost interest through 2005 was $636, whcih is now worth 674 (636 x 1.06) 2005 Late Deposits 2005: $10,000 is late, lost interest is $600. 2006: Lost interest from 2005 was $600, which is now worth $636 (600 x 1.06). So, the total lost interest is 674 dollars, related to the 2004 late deposits, and 636 related to the 2005 late deposits for a total of $1,310. The key is to calc lost earnings for each individual late deposit separately, which is exactly how the DOL's web-site does it.

Maybe notice was sent out in November 2007 for the 08 plan year. Anyone have a notice I can use today to announce the decision to go safe harbor?

An accountant called to tell me not to process his clients RMD yet, because he thought there might be relief on the RMD rules for 2008 - Does anyone have any idea what he's read? It seems hard to believe that any relief would be in line for 2008, since so many RMD's have already been processed? Perhaps the relief will be to allow them to adjustment for investment losses?

No it won't. The only people not covered by the Plan will not have satisfied the plan's eligiblity requirements. Erego, no coverage issue.

1) We need to know the ownership split of the partnership 2) We need to know how (if at all) the S-Corp and the partnership work together, whether or not they are a service industry, etc. If a potential ASG exists, there are a lot more particulars, but what I've mentioned could help to quickly rule it out.

Allow me... Qualified Plans (i.e., non 403b) Small plans have been POTENTIALLY subject to the audit requirement for four or five years now. HOWEVER, the only time they will be subject to an audit is if they screw up. For example, the audit exemption is maintained by: 1) Providing participants additional disclosures in the Summ. Ann. Report (i.e., the summary of 5500 for the participants) regarding where the money is held. This is NOT required if the participant receives their statement directly from a regulated financial institution or insurance company etc (in other words, most plans are all set). This is really tarteted at "pooled" plans where the participant gets a piece of paper off a laser printer from a TPA as evidence of their accounts each year. 2) Having adequate fidelity bond protection IF more than 5% of plan assets are not in "regular" investments. So for example, if 10% of plan assets are invested in a racing horse, or a coin collection, Real Estate, private equities, mortages, etc. additional fidelity bond protection is required, potentially above and beyond the regular 10% fidelity bond. As you can see, maintaining the exemption is not particularly challenging, and I would therefore be surprised if any significant number of small plans have actually had to get an audit. With respect to 403(b)'s what she says is true (I'm not sure of the exact effective date)--this represents a DRAMATIC change in 403(b) plans. Compare this to the small plan audit waiver where the DOL really just wanted to deter "bad" fiduciaries from investing in garbage, and did not really want small plans to get audits.

Any number divided by itself is indeed 1, which in ADP test is 100% (that would have quite a dramatic effect in a small population!) But I thought it was more like any VALUE divided itself is 1, but zero is by definition the lack of any value at all... But admittedly I did not study match in grad school - truth be told I studied nothing at all in grad school (of course if I had gone to grad school I would have studied...).

Anyone whose a TPA knows you can't charge enough for loans - you will always lose money or barely break even on loans (particularly in the case of a client who is not diligent in administering the loan payroll deduction process, and particularly if participants are allowed more than one loan outstanding). I will say this though, we are relying a LOT more on the fund company's automated loan programs and a lot less on flipping through piles of amortization schedules, which has helped us keep our fees down.

I've never seen guaranteed payments not be included in earned income. I have seen CPA's forget to fill in the SE box by accident. Do with it what you will