WDIK

Such a scenario as you describe is certainly possible. The Summary Plan Description you should have received as a participant should explain the timing issues related to receiving a distribution.

Who are the named andministrator and trustees?

Weren't the $1,000 in earnings credited to the husband's account?

Let's see... 1) Could have been more clear. 2) Could have been less combative. 3) Must be asked multiple times. 4) Has other interests in mind. Based on my experience as an adjunct professor, the poster could very likely be a student working on an assignment.

http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq_dfvc.html See the sixth question from the bottom.

Does this old thread offer any assistance?

If I understand your scenario correctly and no distribution was made from the plan, then no 1099-R is required.

Willow: I read your question as asking, "Does it matter if the '20%' is not fully vested?" I would turn the question the other was, "What does it matter if the '20%' are fully vested?"

Or Pensions in Paradise?

Form 5500 instructions: Line 2i(4). Other expenses are those that cannot be included in 2i(1) through 2i(3). These may include plan expenditures such as salaries and other compensation and allowances (e.g., payment of premiums to provide health insurance benefits to plan employees), expenses for office supplies and equipment, cars, telephone, postage, rent, expenses associated with the ownership of a building used in the operation of the plan, all miscellaneous expenses and trustees’ fees and reimbursement of expenses associated with trustees such as lost time, seminars, travel, meetings, etc.

It must be great to live in the land of hakuna matata. Unfortunately I am a type A.

Offshore: After reading your posts, it appears to me that you may have meant to title this thread "Offshoring - Pros and pros".

It is my understanding that the daily penalty is counted from the original due date, not the extended due date, but still a better deal than otherwise.

What exactly is being amended?

9 - Wild, Wild West 14 - Gremlins 17 -Godzilla

It is difficult to talk in absolutes, but in my personal experience (only two audit situations) the IRS has taken that position 0% of the time. (Although when talking to clients, I point out the same concerns namealreadyinuse has raised.)

Synchronize the paydays for all employees. (Out of curiosity, what was the basis for the difference to begin with?)

I concur. No need to scurry to the bomb shelter.

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=31275

Then, I guess, technically you are not changing "the plan" and do not need to amend "the plan."

I cannot think offhand of any change to the adoption agreement that does not require an amendment. A SMM is merely used to report changes in the SPD to plan participants.

The instructions indicate that you should "place an asterisk (*) on the line of each identified person known to be a party-in-interest to the plan."

Form 5304-SIMPLE allows each eligible employee to select his or her own financial institution to receive contributions. Form 5305-SIMPLE designates a financial institution to be used. I am uncertain what to make of your comment regarding "Section V". Both forms contain an Article V which are plan definitions.

My suggestion is to focus on these two statements.

Perhaps Professor Solomon can help.