austin3515

NAPA will by my heroes if they can fix this. ASPPA, now that the tax law thing is said and done you should reorganize your efforts to bring this back!! If anyone is listening of course! This is just real bad policy.

Our document provider pretty much came to the same conclusion. If they moved to custodial acccounts, no hardships, etc. He wanted to say that we should be ablet o track the money that accumulated in the annuity under a separate accounting but he thought even that was tough to rationalize based on the language in the regs.

Exactly.

That is such a dirty trick. Sadly what it means is no one will file for these anymore. For loan defaults, the participant will just have to be out of luck. Maybe if the participant is lucky, the employer will pay their taxes. And RMD people, wll, the participant will be stuck paying the excise tax in some situations. Nicely played.

https://www.erisapracticecenter.com/2018/01/annual-irs-revenue-procedure-includes-surprising-change-to-user-fees/ They got rid of the reduced VCP filing fees for stupid things like RMD's and loan defaults. Schedule of User Fees for VCP submissions, is revised to change the user fees to: $1,500 for plans with assets of $500,000 or less; $3,000 for plans with assets of over $500,000 to $10,000,000; and $3,500 for plans with assets of over $10,000,000. (4) All other reduced or alternative fees previously set forth in Appendix A, .09, no longer apply. so the small business which is likely to have loan failures and missed RMD's pays $1,500 or $3,000. Plans over 10 Million pay just $3,500. What a nice thing for the mega corporations. What an awful decision. I hate to be political but I swear the most important thing for this administration feels like undoing as much as possible from the prior administration.

RBG, yes yes yes. I go back to my original point, you cannot tax someone on money they NEVER got. Period. You just can't do that. And no one does.

Nobody, and I mean nobody, uses the $10,000 provision you indicate, because it involves using non-plan assets as collateral. I've read about it in books but in my lengthy career I have never seen it done.

Now, I of course know exactly they mean by this. But I thought maybe you would do the rest of the readers a favor and explain the practical implications of this statement with an example? Because to me.... errr... I mean to the other readers , it might not make sense at first glance.

Gee why didn't I think of that

Untrue. The $100 million dollar program simply indicates the max loan based on the data that the software already has (account balance, loan balance, and any other limitations). No data entry required. For that matter, perhaps the plan only takes into account certain sources for the 50% threshold. That could account for the discrepancy. It is an extremely rare scenario, but there really must be something.

If 26,238 is the value of the investments excluding the loans, your calculation is correct. But again we know something must be wrong with your figures because my money is on Vanguard's $100 million software package calculating it correctly.

I'm erring on the side of not mentioning it and if they ever came back to me, I can say with a straight face why I did what I did. They're big boys and girls over at the IRS/Treasury, and it's important to choose your words carefully. I'm not going to subject myself to a rule that isn;t written down. Things say what they say and they don;t say nothin' else!

I swear the other day when I went to congress.gov and searched the bill there was language in there about opening up hardships to other sources and eliminating the restrictions on 401k gains. I went back today, and nothing? Did that get nixed??

You have already concluded that it is a Controlled Group? If the answer is yes (not enough info was provided), then clearly the transition relief appliues here. If the acquisition is dated 1/1/18 seems to me they would have until 12/31/19 as a transition period. If your question is because of the asset sale, see 1.410(b)-2 (f) which lists asset sales as eligible for relief.,

First of all it is almost impossible to imagine their system wouldn't calculate accurately. Correction, it is impossible. 2nd based on the informaiton you gave, even if the 26K includes the loan balance, I still get a different number than what they have provided. And taking into account my first statement, it means that in all likelihood you are missing something. What you need from them is a calculation. Not a rep over the phone but something on paper that demonstrates the max.

No argument from me. The questions isn't whether I have to do an RMD but rather if I have to provide an explanation on the VCP app. None of the logic you just sited is stated or implied when they ask if anyone is a 10% owner.

Well, one is automatic approval and the other apparently takes facts and circumstances into account. I much prefer automatic. ALSO, if anyone ever suggested I filled the forms out incorrectly, I'm just going to say "no I didn't". I think I'm going to go for it this way. These guys know about attribution, so they would have said it. HEre's another thought, maybe it's not too dissimilar from the "innocent spouse" rule. OR how about this. Johnny (age 45) owns 100% of a buisness and his father works and needs RMD's. Perhaps that is a more likely scenario, for which the IRS did not want to add extra hurdles.

The 14568 Schedule H has this question: "At least one affected participant is either an owner-employee (see IRC Section 401(c)(3)) or, if the plan sponsor is a corporation, a 10 percent owner of such corporation" The person in question is NOT a 10% owner (it is a corporation). They are MARRIED to a 10% owner. This question makes no mention of attribution, so I am comfortable checking "no" there is no such person involved in the failure. I looked in 2016-51 and this question is not addressed from what I can see (see 6.09(2)). I think they would have said "including attribution under 318" if that was what they meant. Thoughts appreciated!

100% off the top. It does not make sense to tax someone on money they never got. Doctrine of "Constructive receipt" applies in my opinion, which states that you should only be taxed if you receive the money. Similarly, I personally cannot stand when a recordkeeper rolls up the loan fee into the loan balance. $5,000 loan, person gets a check for $4,900. You're making them pay interest on the loan fee, and taxes if they default? That's not right.

403b Plan moves from an insurance company to a mutual fund company. There is a ton of money in the non-elective source. Is there any way I can preserve at least the existing money for hardship distributions?

I cannot find a simple straightforward explanation of how someone reports a 60 day rollover on their 1040. I know it has something to do with 16a and 16b, but is there another form? Do they simply enter $15,000 on 16a (assuming that is the gross amount of the distribution) and $0 on 16b? Is it just that easy?

I think I remember seeing that now that you mention it. I agree, it's the medical practices who are doing the "will my tax deductions pay for the staff contributions" math. Let's see where this ends up...

Closer to reality every day. I woke up reading the notifications on my phone (about Senate passing their bill) thinking this must be the Bizaaro World episode of Seinfeld. Wasn't it the Republicans who shutdown the government a "few" years ago because of concerns over the deficit? Right wrong or indifferent on the policies, it just seems like what used to be important enough to them to shut down the government for weeks is today just completely not a concern.

I'm starting to worry more every day about the reduction of pass through income taxes to 20% nder the new proposals. Would 100% of pass through income be subject to just 20%? In other words, does that include Guarnateed Payments and the allocation of ordinary income? ASPPA put out a piece where they brought up the issuye that if clients only get a deduction for 20% whent he money goes in and then it is taxed as ordinary income when they withdraw, they will likely be paying MORE tax on the way out, creating a huge disincentive to save. I've seen some write-ups, but nothing on the nuts and bolts mechanics of what this would look like.

It's a lot of money to Dr. Evil too. That's what happens when you are cryogenically frozen for decades at a time!