Bird

Assuming we're talking about 2012...(edit: yes I see we are!) I get $260,312 (I do not adjust for the 2% reduction in SS taxes that may or may not be appropriate). (I'd quibble that the resulting $250K doesn't mean anything because it would be further reduced by any 'er contributions...I guess if you're calc'ing a 401(k) % it has some meaning.) I get $174,157 for the second one.

I wouldn't call them "corrections" until after the due date of the tax return. Until then, they are "adjustments" to "estimated" contributions. (Yes, I would adjust in 2013.)

Seems like most that want Roth have it already; I see nothing special about 2013. Probably true that "more" will be adding but 1% is "more." Probably written for sales people.

I doubt it. If I had to guess, the registration for the plan that is supposed to be a SEP says "profit sharing." Or else what you are saying is supposed to be a SEP really is a profit sharing plan. Someone is going to have to find some documents and compare them to the registrations and figure out how to get the bank to re-register/fix everything. I doubt it will be easy.

It sounds like your situation is a good fit for a DB plan, but you're going to have to address some issues about eligibility and such. You really need to engage a consultant or an actuary to dig into the details and design something that works best for you. I think there's a benefit to being able to sit down with someone, at least once, so you might take a look in your local yellow pages under Pension and Profit Sharing plans. As a general rule, I'd suggest keeping life insurance out of a qualified plan.

It's not that big of a deal for the Money Purchase plan. For the future, make sure the bank knows it is a qualified plan. I'd rate the SEP a bigger "deal" because if it's a SEP then it should be an IRA account, and there's no way an institution is going to mess that up by issuing a 1099-INT. Someone with a clue will have to look at the titling and sort that out.

They are probably taking steps to establish identity, as required by...I guess it is Dodd-Frank. The investment company has to take some steps to confirm that the account is not part of a money-laundering scheme, and/or the investor is not a terrorist. The broker is also supposed to show that the investments are "appropriate" and establishing identity is part of that process. (Of course none of this is relevant in a retirement plan situation but we can't let logic interfere with rules.) I didn't pay enough attention in my continuing ed to tell you if a SS number is an absolute requirement, or just the first and most logical thing to ask for, but it's not an outrageous request IMO.

The Code originates in Congress. Maybe somebody's brother needed a break.

I'm with Masteff. I'm all for doing things "right", but there wasn't some kind of cheating going on, it was just a paperwork mistake. I don't think at this point there would be any red flags, and in the unlikely event it comes up you just keep the paperwork you have noting the missing (2003) contribution that logically says one of the 2004s was for 2003.

Found a couple of these in our pooled funds this year (and noticed one that has been around for a while but didn't realize the values given weren't really "values"). I'm talking about the David Lerner Apple partnerships, non-traded "business development companies" (a type of closed-end mutual fund) and the like. And I'm talking about relatively small plans, all DC but it would be relevant for DBs as well. They generally give a year-end "statement" that has the last public offering price or cost basis or something similarly irrelevant, but which gives the appearance of a current value. Just wondering what other folks are doing as far as determining a value. In most cases, I will make it clear that we can't just take the number of off the statement, and will more-or-less get the trustee to give us a value (probably the number on the statement, but at least we've turned it around so the trustee is giving it to us and we are not just reading it off a statement). Then we'll use a 5500 instead of 5500-SF because we don't have a fair market value. Any thoughts?

Nice of you to be so concerned - you must be young and not so jaded - but I wouldn't worry about it. If the IRS looks into it (unlikely), they just explain that it was a retirement account and miscoded.

Ha. I bit my tongue and didn't way what I really wanted to - "He's a broker so he could be stupid, lying, or both."

I think you could do them all together. I don't know that you'd want to - I don't. It sounds like it's more trouble than it's worth...

It seems you quoted from the SPD and not the plan. The plan probably clarifies it (and includes late retirement).

I assume you're using platforms that report taxes for you? We still get EINs for everyone; still have some accounts where they are needed and recordkeepers are asking for them now even though the number just sits on a piece of paper. Anyway, I wouldn't bother getting them or checking on them unless they are needed for some reason, and I wouldn't consider optional reporting on a 5500 as "needed."

Yes it seems strange - beyond strange - and I don't think I would trust the broker's statement that "they" prepare the 1099-R that way, if at all. BG might be right about them being registered as regular brokerage accounts, but then they wouldn't be set up for 1099-Rs.

We handle some plans like this and as the TPA, we are set up to handle the electronic deposit of withholding. I think your best bet on this is to run it through Penchecks. They'll handle the payment to the participant, withholding and 1099-R. Of course we're all cringing when we read "They have had someone at their office preparing the 5500, maintaining the plan document, and trying to do the admin." What do you do for the plan, if I may ask?

I understand the antsyness about ownership when someone gets a K-1, but it doesn't sound like there is any ownership. (FWIW, I think my prior comment was incorrect - after seeing more of these, there's (probably) nothing wrong with it being on a K-1.)

The plan isn't 404a5 compliant without the 30 days. I think they'll process a loan if you tell them you understand and that they're not responsible.

We would code it for Dec 2012. (I thought EFTPS didn't let you put in the "for" period?)

I don't think required minimums have to be taxable, so the tax free part would cover the RMD. I think you need one 1099-R coded 4G for the rollover, and one for $175,000 Code 4, with the taxable amount $0.

I agree, it's a cutback.

Talk about irony...I was able to flag a spammer on the very next post, in this thread. Geez.

I just do it. Typically plans are on a platform and payments are made through a debit from the company checking account, and we have them write checks to the company.

I consider that to be paid out; net assets are $0.