K-t-F

Thanks for that ! No SH contribution issues... as a matter of fact they received like $1200 too much and they returned it already. question... The plan had it's own EIN.... Do we need to apply for a new plan EIN because the old owner (Bob's) was affiliated to that EIN and now Bob's is gone?

What they want is for the plan to continue on as if nothing happened. So let me get this straight... Bob's Dental sells to Sue's Dental... asset sale Sue's Dental can simply take over Bob's Dental 401(k)? -> simply amend the plan by changing the plan sponsor? Changing the trustees? Case closed? -> in the above scenario the participants don't have a choice.... plan just continues on as Sue's Dental wants? If so then I am guilty of overthinking the whole case.

Here are the simple facts: -> Dental Practice is sold - asset sale - all employees stay at their positions -> New owners take over the plan to keep a status quo ... so the employees can continue to defer and receive the SH match The new owners adopted a new plan which is a mirror of the existing plan. All employees are given credit for their service with previous company. They want to merge the old plan with the new plan. Q - Do we need to, are we required to give the participants the option to take their money? Take a distribution? (or of course roll their accounts to the new plan) Thanks

Just heard back from the CPA. Indeed it was an asset sale. So my question now is... Can the entity that purchased the business continue to maintain the plan as it exists? If so, what steps should we take? Appreciate the help.

The new owners paid cash and took over the name, clients... everything. That would be a stock sale... agreed?

A dental practice was sold and the new doctors who purchased the practice took over payroll. I was not made aware of the sale until after it was finalized . As a result deferrals were not withheld or paid in. Employees paychecks were bigger as a result and no one spoke up. Is there a cure? Instead of making everything right with one correction to an employee's next paycheck, can the missed deferrals be spread out over a few paychecks? Thanks

It has been 1 year almost to the day. Re-calculating the loan so that it is paid off on time ... is that an acceptable solution? I struggle with this whole debacle because it is not the participant's fault. I mean, the payroll administrator dropped the ball by not starting the deduction.

No... not just a few. We are talking months. I should have mentioned that in the original post.

A participant took a loan from the plan and the payment was supposed to be withheld from their payroll. The payment was not. Besides getting the deduction going so that the loan is paid back, what is the remedy for the lost time... missing payments?

Thanks... that is how I understood the rule. A owner could have one employee who works less than 1,000 hours. If the plan requires 1,000 hours to be eligible then that employee is not eligible.... and the plan with only the owner as a participant would be EZ eligible. Sometimes I think too much

From the form 5500 instructions the IRS writes this: A “one-participant plan” is: (1) a pension benefit plan that covers only an individual or an individual and his or her spouse who wholly own a trade or business, whether incorporated or unincorporated; (2) or a pension benefit plan for a partnership that covers only the partners or the partners and the partners’ spouses. Thus, a “one-participant plan” can cover more than one participant. On the other hand, merely covering only one participant does not make you eligible to file as a “one-participant plan” unless you are one of the types of plans described above. A CPA is saying that his client who has 1 employee who works 10 hours a week and does not meet the 1,000 hour requirement would still be eligible to file a form 5500EZ. Based on the above that would not be the case. Simple answer.. EZ eligible or not?

Does everyone who is not from MA assume that people who live here are horrible? Because we aren't . No Rollover money... just a guy who doesn't want to participate in the plan anymore so he wants to take his money. He can't and I told him that. Of course with the internet when people don't receive the answer they like they start "Google-ing". He must have found something and pulled a few snippets from his find that he thought backed up his case so he questioned my answer. For a quick confirmation of my knowledge I posted the question to see if there was anything I missed. That's it. Thanks to all!

Situation is this.... An employee who is a participant in the plan (SH Match 401(k) ) simply doesn't want to play anymore. He wants to take his money and invest it somewhere else... away from the plan. There is not a distributable event... not 59-1/2... not disabled... nothing. The employee is out of luck... correct? Money has to stay put.

I can see how some businesses may cross, regardless of how different they may be. And I will advise this guy that he for sure is a control group of companies.

I knew the answer ... am I alone thinking this is unfair? I mean his 2 businesses have absolutely nothing in common except ownership.

I hate the control group issue. I don't agree that a guy, who has 2 totally separate businesses in every way, must include both companies in coverage and testing. That said I just need confirmation that there is nothing I am missing. Guy is a financial advisor... independent RIA He also has a real estate business 100% owner of both Control group... yes? Thanks

Thanks Bird... No, did not prepare a 945-A but it sounds like maybe we should to argue that the payments were not late. As for those dates, I was told that the payments were both instigated on the same day but cleared on those specific dates. An internal payment is quick... a payment that flows through EFTPS took a few days. Im going to do more research. Thanks again

The IRS is... well... dealing with this I became very frustrated. I spoke to 4 different people and got many different answers. One agent told me I was all good! Another told me that my client was on a daily schedule... that the taxes needed to be in by the very next day. Sheesh! Who knows the answer definitively! But what frustrated me the most is that the client would pull the distribution and at the very same time pay the taxes using his EFTPS account and yet the IRS said he is still late. Im still looking into this... something is not right.

The instructions of 945 do point to Pub 15 section 11. Reading and trying to understand. I spoke to an agent who did tell me that they have this plan in their system as a semiweekly8 depositor. Im reading and will circle back

to the plan.... "charges to your December 31, 2017 945"

I get that a business may be on a schedule but a participant of a plan who takes distributions during the year is supposed to make periodic tax payments? How would he know how much to pay? Regarding how quick did he make the tax deposits here is an example... he took a $23,000 payout... $15,000 to him on 1/13 $8,000 to the IRS on 1/17 During the year he took $373K in total payouts. He paid in from that taxes totaling $124K. What about all the plan participants who take RMDs? Are they supposed to make tax payments monthly?

Did I miss the memo? I have a client who has for a few years been taking distributions from his single member plan. He is older than 59-1/2 (70-1/2 this year as a matter of fact) so there is not premature distribution issue. We pay the taxes on all distributions in excess of the 20% minimum (33%)... prepare the 1099-R and 945. Uncle Sam sent him a penalty letter telling him that his tax payments are late! That he is on a tax payment "schedule"? Ok.. how can he be on a "schedule" if he doesn't know when he will take a distribution? And.. when he does take a payout he immediately pays the taxes... using the EFTPS system. Like I said.. did I miss the memo?

I have an attorney who has continually asked if it is acceptable to co-mingle ROTH contributions with regular salary deferrals in a single investment account. I informed him that it is acceptable as long as you keep each source separated when performing the annual accounting meaning... as long as you allocate earnings proportionately. Does anyone have an IRS cite saying that is an acceptable practice? That is what he is looking for. Thanks

A is a W-2 employee... sorry for the slow response.

A & B are not married. No attribution there. A does pay income taxes on his pay from the publishing company. Affiliated Service Groups. ... confusing. Can anyone help me put the players in place? Publishing Co owned 50/50 (FSO?) Graphic Design Co owned 100% by B (A-Org because B owns a share of the FSO) Does the fact that the Graphic Design Co performs work for the publishing company automatically make this an ASG? The Graphic Design Co has many clients and does not by any means earn a majority of it's income from the publishing company. I have read that if the percentage of income is 5% or less then an ASG does not exist. Thoughts?