WDIK

Don't do such a thing so close to October 15th!!!

Granted, completeness was probably not the most appropriate term that I could have chosen, unless I was planning on attaching Publication 590, etc. (My previous post did specify that it was the deductibility that was at issue.)

Just for completeness, it ought to be pointed out that modified adjusted gross income does have an effect on deductibility if the individual is covered by a retirement plan.

C) Prepare a written statement detailing the situation the plan is in, possibile ramifications and the advisable course of action. Keep a copy. Then consider either option A (if I needed the fees) or B (if I did not).

Examples 5 through 7 in Appendix B, Section 2 of Revenue Procedure 2003-44 may give you some ideas.

Are there matching contributions?

If a sham termination falls in the forest and the IRS is not there to hear it, does it make a sound? Such a scenario may be difficult to detect on an audit, but certainly BenefitsLink members hold themselves to a higher, ethical standard. P.S. There are a number or previous discussion that can be found searching for "sham termination."

If they are genuine in their assertion that they will give the current financial guy an opportunity, I would explain your ethical dilemma and encourage them to speak to the financial guy up front. If they are not willing to do so, how can you be sure that they won't (or already aren't) speak(ing) to another TPA to see if they like what they hear?

The Schedule A instructions seems to give a fairly broad definition: For purposes of line 2, commissions and fees include sales and base commissions and all other monetary and non-monetary forms of compensation where the broker’s, agent’s, or other person’s eligibility for the payment or the amount of the payment is based, in whole or in part, on the value (e.g., policy amounts, premiums) of contracts or policies (or classes thereof) placed with or retained by an ERISA plan, including, for example, persistency and profitability bonuses.

It's been a long time since I studied economics, particularly the law of supply and demand, but see if my logic makes sense. 1) If demand is high, prices go up. 2) If supply exceeds demand, prices drop. 3) We need more lawyers to help lower the costs of creating SPDs.

Who is it otherwise?

It has been my understanding that filing for a determination letter is optional where the document is an approved prototype. I do agree that the ruling will generally take over a year.

The 2005 Schedule I instructions define entries for line 2h by stating "[o]ther expenses (paid and/or payable) may include..." [emphasis added]

The 2005 Schedule H instructions indicate that you should "nclude the total fees paid (or in the case of accrual basis plans costs incurred during the plan year but not paid as of the end of the plan year)..."

I would suggest you refer to your duplicate post.

Yes. If, as you say, the plan was otherwise operated in compliance with regulations, the VCP program is a relatively pain-free and inexpensive solution. (At least it has been in my experience.)

When it comes to questions that I can't answer (like this one), I try to skirt the issue. For example, amend the NRA to require at least one year of plan participation. If pressed, alternative two is more logical to me, but I can certainly see how a strict reading of plan language might require alternative one.

Just for fun, perhaps some of you would like to help skew the average results (4 out of 10 answers correct) of this quiz.

We have a sighting!

It's nice to see you posting again, Mike. I hope your return is permanent.

Will criticizing your childish ways discourage such behavior? (I thought not.)

A definite top-ten post. (Hmmm. Perhaps a new poll.)

A recent thread prompted me to pose the following questions for those forum members with experience in dealing with the "individual" or "solo" 401(k) plans. Are most/any of the plan documents used by those entities marketing individual 401(k) plans worded to explicitly exclude employees other than the owner, or is it more common to simply use a standard 401(k) document for a single participant plan and merely call it a "Solo(k)"? If the former, do they accept adopting employers that have employees other than the owner? Thanks for any and all feedback.

Although the Form 1024 does not currently appear on the "Forms and Publications" list, other pages of the IRS website do link to form and instructions. In each of those instances, the link is to the 1998 revision to which you refer. If there is a newer version, it is not apparent. If you are still uncomfortable, it may be worthwhile to call the IRS for clarification.

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=29666