Bird

I agree with prior posters. Can't add SH mid-year to an existing k plan, whether anyone is using the k part or not.

If the client has a good relationship with a local bank, tell him to talk to their trust department. This worked great for a client of mine...it was a number of years ago, and banking has changed a lot, so it might be a long shot, but worth a try.

Write back and ask for an abatement of penalties; say that the client has procedures in place to prevent this from happening again, as evidenced by the correct filing for 2006. Emphasize that it is an informational return only with no tax liability, throw in some other stuff that basically says the same thing all over again, then repeat that they have procedures in place to prevent this from happening. If it doesn't work the first time, do it all again. Also check and see if the $100,620 included an accrued contribution; if so, remark that a return wasn't even required because it could have been (non)filed on a cash basis. I haven't had to deal with this for a few years, but I don't think anyone who tries fails to get the penalties abated on an EZ.

Not an HCE. I learned that we might be able to call it a hardship and will probably try to go in that direction as there are procedures for that. thanks for the feedback.

I'd probably take the copy. But I wonder if the bene showed the court forms proving that they were indeed the bene, then they might be able to get an original death certificate.

Yes, 2008 5500s are being forwarded to DC from Kansas.

Participant had a self-directed account for 401(k) money at Vanguard, became disillusioned for a lot of reasons that I won't get into, and somehow just took the money out; probably with the plan sponsor signing off without our knowledge or input...actually in direct contradiction to our input, but anyway... I don't believe there was any withholding, and I'm going to assume for now that the participant has the money. I'm being completely lazy and not even trying to find a fix in VCP; is there one that anyone knows of? Does it matter if the participant is able or unable to repay the money? It's a 5/31 fiscal year and the transaction occurred before the end of the year so it's an open item.

Ha! I haven't seen much of anything on this, and am spinning about aimlessly trying to figure out how to handle a plan on the Hartford mutual fund platform. The only hard numbers we got are for broker's comp; the rest of the info is just percentages for the overall fund fees, management fees and 12b-1 fees. I don't know if that disclosure is sufficient to qualify as eligible indirect comp; if not, then I don't know how to calculate it; the best we can do is a very rough estimate. And then there are the other contractors such as Morningstar who are getting "something" but no one has a clue how much is attributable to each plan. Any thoughts?

Well there you go. They're just being corporate about it and are trying to cover their butt whether it needs it or not.

I don't think a contribution is required if the requirements are as you state, and the end of the plan year hasn't been reached. You have to give a notice prior to terminating.

1) They should have at least been amended to comply with current law at the time they were terminated. I imagine there was an EGTRRA good faith amendment in place, I think the final 401(k) regs should have been done, and maybe a couple of others - but if they are prototypes, you'd think they were done, maybe at the prototype level. 2) I don't believe that restating a plan in 2010 that was terminated in 2008 accomplishes anything whatsoever. 3) What exactly is the custodian going to do if they don't sign?

I would give it a shot (using 2009 forms and changing the dates). It's not like they're going to do anything with the info anyway.

It's still 7043; that was my error, sorry! Ed Snyder

If it's a corporation, a resolution is needed to authorize corporate action unless someone is otherwise generally authorized to take action. But the IRS just cares if the amendment was adopted; I've never voluntarily provided a resolution nor been asked to provide one. It could probably be argued that a 100% owner of a corp. doesn't need to tell himself it's ok to do something. A sole proprietor needs no separate authorization (from himself) to take action (although we always prepare a "certificate of action" anyway...). As for the percentage or dollar allocations to groups, you're supposed to have a memorandum from the business to the trustee telling how the contribution is allocated. I don't recall the history of that but it goes way back and the IRS said this somewhere, sometime.

I vote no. I believe that form is just for income tax return filings.

This came up not too long ago and most of us thought we couldn't imagine when this would actually happen in our plans. I don't think they mean RMDs but I have no basis for it other than gut feel.

Yes, I think that is included.

They're supposed to be accepting 2008 plan year filings through October 15, 2010 on paper through the old EFAST system. http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/5500main.html Maybe try again, with a copy of the webpage. Keep the postmarked envelope as proof of mailing if you don't have other proof.

Sounds like the Trustee failed to follow the directions provided and should have the liability, no? It seems unusual to me that an employer is giving specific investment directions, unless it's a corporate trustee, in which case they have deeper pockets anyway. Maybe I just see things differently (often). Anyway, I don't really know if it would fit VFC.

Neither, probably. The document may provide specifics on this, but more likely (IMO) it will just say what the comp limit for the year is. Let's say someone is making $490,000, 2X the current comp limit, and they are deferring 1.5% of that, so they get the 3% match on eligible comp. I'm not in the payroll business, but I would just match all the way through. At the end of the year, deferrals will be $7,350, 3% of $245,000, and the match is also $7,350 and will have been deposited in the proper amount. If that same person is deferring 2%, then someone should be able to figure out when they have $7,350 in matching contributions and stop them at that point.

Agree, SE tax s/b based on earnings before the contribution. I haven't had this particular situation, but in other cases where I know numbers are suspect, I try to specifically ask for what I need; in this case "ok, so what exactly is the self-employment income BEFORE taking into account the owner's contribution?" If I couldn't get a direct response then I guess I'd add back the contribution...of course when YOU are the one calculating the contribution, and there are other participants involved and you wind up with a different number, then it gets interesting...

Overthinking. As noted, the idea is to make the parties whole; that means putting the money into the Roth source where is would have been absent the error.

Sounds like an RGF warning, not DOL. Use 0.

I agree that both pages are needed. Read literally, the asap authorization only refers to p 1 or 2 going to the practitioner (who would then scan the other page and submit both...but that's kind of a weak defense!). Of course (?), the system doesn't know if you have attached both pages in the pdf, or a picture of your cat for that matter...I don't think anything would happen if you only attached the page with the signature.

In a one-person plan, you could be directing the investments either as the participant or as the trustee, at least I'm assuming you are the trustee and not TD Ameritrade. The technical answer lies somewhere in the plan document, as does the answer to whether 2T is appropriate. If I had to guess, I'd go with 2R but not 2T. And don't worry about it too much; that info will just go into a statistical black hole.