Bird

The 5500 Preparer's Manual (for 2009 - I don't buy it every year) says valuations or appraisals go under administrative expenses/professional fees. I'd put the landscaping under "other" - the Manual says to include "...expenses associated with the ownership of a building used in the operation of the plan" (my emphasis) so that's not exactly on point but...it doesn't fit anywhere else, so, the last time I checked, that's pretty much the definition of "other." It's definitely not appreciation/depreciation.

There never was an "s"; always Ft. William, although it's often been misspelled here. It has something to do with a place in Scotland; founder's affinity or affiliation to same, I think.

I didn't think a partnership could be changed to another form of entity, but whatever...

I suggest we leave it. I never heard of it (thought I had heard most everything about life insurance) and appreciate the response to it.

They are great - fantastic - for our purposes (we are a TPA for smaller plans). Very responsive. I can't speak to the complicated schedules issue but everything we do through them is handled well.

I agree.

I can't prove it but my take is that it is still the spouse's account, and eligible for EZ or SF-1 participant filing.

That makes less sense and doesn't agree with the clarification in the original post. I think you give 1099s to your contractors, right? The bottom line is, you can make retirement plan contributions based on your compensation. For this purpose, that would be your W-2s. If your pay is low, you can maximize contributions by setting up a SIMPLE and deferring 100% of pay, up to $12,000, plus $2,500 if over age 50 (if you don't participate in a 401(k) elsewhere and maximize those contributions). That involves withholding contributions from your pay. Otherwise the business can establish a SEP and contribute up to 25% of pay as an employer contribution, after the end of the year.

I generally don't use an early retirement age any more. It might just accelerate vesting or allow someone to get money a little earlier than in a "termination" but it's not very meaningful. Of course if it's already there we leave it.

Agreed that an EIN is needed. I just explained this to someone so if anyone else is looking for proof, see text below that I lifted from an e-mail. Maybe the IRS assigned one? That's a little scary but the only explanation I can think of.

I dunno. Generally, restrictions on availability of brokerage accounts imposed by a financial institution are ok. I'm not so sure this is a problem. At least part of it is about suitability, and if they know about another account they can be assured that the client has the assets for this theoretically riskier approach.

Exactly. I get the idea they just want to move the assets and/or change the TPA, which doesn't require a plan termination. Tip: people, even those working in the field, sometimes confuse "terminate services" with "terminate the plan."

Yes, can start a plan. SEP has no effect on B's contributions in new plan, assuming B did not own 80% of the partnership and the two entities are not an affiliated service group.

Sorry, no cite. It is common for businesses to change organizational structure and we change the sponsor from the sole prop. to corp. or vice versa all the time.

yes

I'm probably in the minority but I'm actually happy to see this. There have to be at least a few plans/sponsors out there who will say "what's this about non-discrimination testing?" Similar Q's used to be asked; I'm looking at a 1996 return, and it has a question about whether compensation was limited, and others about amendments. From a compliance standpoint, the current returns are of limited use, at best. I guess the DOL got their stuff in there, and I know that this new form has something to do with IRS/DOL/SSA working together and not being able to ask certain questions (although I can't begin to understand the bureaucratic reasons behind it). Sure, it will be a pain, and they will make it more of a pain than it needs to be, but it should be a minor nuisance for those of us whose purpose in life is to make sure those questions can be answered properly.

You used to be able to do 6% in addition to the 415 max (pre 1986 I think); that's why we used to see them more often. Now, they are counted against 415, so we see them seldom if ever since other contributions are generally preferred. I think the limitations you mention are it.

115K in 2014 means HCE in 2015 120K in 2015 means HCE in 2016

I see that last year's release was Oct 31; the year before, Oct 18. My guess is that there is a bureaucratic answer for the release dates, possibly dating back to the Franklin Roosevelt administration.

I think you can do what you want. If it is your own plan and you want to have fun with allocating dividends and interest as they occur, go for it. If you are doing it for someone else, I find it hard to believe it is more efficient to do it daily val if it is invested in a brokerage account, but whatever works for you.

IANAL, but a lawyer might take the position that a partnership does not need a formal record of action - signatures of all partners on a document are sufficient to indicate that they approve and adopt the action. Did the amendment have all such signatures? It sure makes things clearer if they just go along.

I agree with ESOP guy. Our older documents specified the exact allocation basis for each source (e.g. beginning balance for PS, beginning balance + 1/2 of the year's contributions for deferrals). Our EGTRRA document says: For purposes of the allocation investment earnings and losses, the Plan Administrator may adjust the value of interests of Investment Funds in Accounts as of the preceding Valuation Date to account for any contributions, distributions or withdrawals that occur after such preceding Valuation Date. That leaves it to the PA. I would definitely not adjust the allocation basis with each contribution unless the plan is daily val'd.

I agree, with the caveat that you can't use forfeitures to fund SH contributions, at least when using a PPA document. Another solution for "getting rid" of these is to pay them to the TPA as fees, if permitted by the plan.

Allocations of gains should be done on each valuation date. That would be yearly in my pooled plans, unless a special valuation date is declared, which would be a waste of time for a one-man plan. Round according to your best judgment.

I think the "perfect" solution, in terms of fixing the original problem, is to reverse the original transaction and re-run the allocations and see where everyone winds up. I think that's what you're saying. The employer will have to indemnify the investment company for any additional funds needed to make everyone whole. But that can get difficult, especially if there have been exchanges, and more so if there have been distributions. At some level you have to be practical, and if that is not practical, then the proposed solution sounds reasonable to me.