Jump to content

wsp

Update pending
  • Posts

    303
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About wsp

  • Birthday 07/08/1965

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0
  1. Is it plausible that previously approved 2007 claims but paid during January of 2008 can then be denied upon internal audit during August, 2008 and thus become 2008 taxable income to the employee?
  2. 401k plan with SHNEC and New Comp plan passes testing but only after limiting the ownership group to a contribution that is 10k-12k lower than maximum for each of 2 owners. There are additional employees recently hired that could change the results dramatically.... Can we amend the plan to make the eligibility for the profit sharing (and forfeitures) immediate while at same time leave eligibility for deferals and SH plan at 1 year with 6 month entry dates? At same time we would be removing the 1000 hour requirement but leaving in the employed at end of year requirement. Plan is not top heavy and won't be for another 5 years or so at current contribution levels. Doable?
  3. Participant distribution request (via valid POA) was completed and mailed on Thursday. Participant passed away that following weekend. Check was not cut until 8 days later. Distribution was part cash and part rollover to IRA. Does that cash piece go to estate now? or can they both be refunded to trust?
  4. So then do you assign them a position within the medical group? And one gets promoted or demoted if their benefit level changes? Thus the position remains the same but the person who fills that position might change. And to account for new hires due to expansion each group would have positions that are currently unfilled?
  5. IMHO documentation of a 1 day delay in the investment of the assets is going overboard. Documentation of a 1 day delay in the segregation of the assets is not. Doubt you would find anyone to argue that a 1 day delay in investing of assets is not being a reasonably prudent fiduciary. Far different then segregating the assets within that "as soon as administratively possible" rule. Of course this is under the assumption that by "segregating the assets" you are saying that you transferred them out of the company accounts and into a plan account.
  6. That's the point....and again, I'm merely posing the devils advocate point here. The dependent is going to need the care during the day so that the expense incurred during the day is an employment related expense. Seems to me that there is now a market to split the care between two different business entities. One provides and bills for only day time services and the other provides and bills for only nighttime services with only one of them being a deductible expense (depending on when the parent/guardian/supporter works). The mere fact that they occupy the same building/space would be irrelevent. or per our summer camp....The camp is no longer an overnight camp but a day camp. And they just happen to be able to provide transport (hey kids...anyone up for a little walk???) for the children to a facility that is an overnight facility. Does the day camp then become a deductible expense? Does it matter what each entity charges for their services?
  7. Just playing devils advocate here, but wouldn't it be a question of who is providing the care. If the child goes to a daycare facility with the YMCA and those expenses are covered but the YMCA also has an overnight camp that the child attends in lieu of the daycare for a week why wouldn't the portion attributable to normal care during the day be a qualified expense? Note, I'm not saying that JPOD's position is wrong...just musing on if the IRS would allow such an exception. Personally I hope not as that leads to all sorts of "what if's"... But it just seems odd that the expense is allowable for little Johnny to color, paint, and play at the YMCA's city owned property but it's not ok the exact same thing occurs at the YMCA's country facility. It really can't be so simple as "only the wealthy send their kids to camp so we'll not allow that expense" Can it?
  8. jpod, It's a current year issue so w-2's won't be effected. Quarterly deposits of taxes are an issue as well as modification of employee payrolls. As for plan document, Thought of that already...everything was based upon statements made by HR person who obviously didn't understand the questions being posed. According to the HR Rep they thought that a document wasn't needed because their insurance guy told them since they were under 100 people they could just start withholding on a pre-tax basis.
  9. Employees were not aware of it unless they actually took the time to understand. They were not told that a plan was in place. Not sure if any noticed the deduction that was previously taken post-tax had changed to a pre-tax one. Obviously a putting a plan in place at this juncture is not an option...so what else are my options but to modify their checks over a reasonable period in time?
  10. Now assume the situation is reversed. Turns out there is no plan document. The person doing the setup was told that there was a plan in place and deducted funds pre-tax when there obviously shouldn't have been given that there is no document. All within current plan year but not within current quarter (don't know if the latter matters). Can you just make adjustments on current payroll and submit taxes to various agencies?
  11. wsp

    Catchup only

    And quite the entertaining and informative read it usually is. What exactly would the risk be in this instance? Realistically... Seems to me like this almost boils down to a facts and circumstances issue. I can't imagine that the IRS would come down too heavy handed on it given that it can be reasonably be argued the other way AND it could have been resolved leaving the example in the final regs or issuing comment on why it was pulled.
  12. Can the terms of a participant loan to buy a residence be extended to longer than 5 years if the home that is being purchased is outside of the US? Proposed property purchase is in China. US citizen currently living overseas. edited to add location and citizenship.
  13. wsp

    Catchup only

    So then you limit deferrals to 1% for everyone? Kind of a role reversal isn't it? Over age 50 HCE now benefits more than the NHCE's.
  14. I agree with BXO. The 2% is not combined. They are separate elections. But other than that the logic is correct.
  15. Thanks to the both of you. Was thinking that somehow there was favorable loophole treatment for non-spousal rollover after death from the QP. Didn't think it required the receiving IRA to be a decedent FBO the beneficiary if it came from a QP. Since it doesn't matter...out it goes!
×
×
  • Create New...