Bird

My recollection - whether this was anything official or not I don't remember, but I am actually pretty confident in this - is that a minimum investment requirement set by an investment firm is "ok." Saying "you can have a brokerage window if you have at least $10,000" is not ok. Just be careful that you don't inadvertently wind up with "anyone can do whatever they want" with accounts scattered all over.

I'm sorry, I misread - forceouts, not on request. Actually I think you can change that.

Austin, I think you can do what you suggest. The issues would be whether the plan or loan procedures allow the participant or someone else to choose the source(s) for the loan...presumably at the time the loan is made. If so, then I don't see why they couldn't change it (the source) later. If not, well, I don't see why the policy couldn't be changed. The whole thing seems like a big PITA but I get the reasoning - the alternative being a bigger PITA (maybe). I'm not sure I would "go there" but I give you some points for cleverness.

Yes. You could change it for new participants and grandfather the current ones, but hardly worth the trouble and confusion. But does it matter that much? Paying someone with multiple sources from an individual brokerage account is going to be a hassle no matter what, at least if not 100% vested.

I agree that you can't "represent" the client - e.g. negotiate. But... ...and sometimes that is good enough. If your client is frustrated by being a go-between, it might satisfy everyone to just have the IRS ask you for it directly. Anything deeper than that, you need to be one of the authorized categories.

I started to say I agree but...no, or at least I don't think so. Forget where the money is coming from for a moment, he has an LLC with income. An LLC can certainly sponsor a plan. (If the individual was a partner receiving a K-1, then he could not sponsor a plan on his own.) Caveats: you need to make sure the sponsor is the small LLC, or the sole prop, or maybe both in order to use income for all years. Also the relationship with the big LLC and dual K-1s at least raises some questions about possible control group or affiliated service group issues which should be considered, if they haven't been already.

There are different dates that could determine when a benefit has been accrued and can't be reduced - possibly last day of year, or earning a certain number of hours - but the deposit date is not one of them.

I suggest this be approached in a mechanical (i.e. unemotional) manner. Click, click, click... The mother saying she wants nothing to do with it is not an acceptable response. If she submits a waiver, then (click) you go to the next person in line. If the mother refuses to submit a waiver, then (click) you start sending her checks (obviously she should be made aware that's what will happen). Same process with the sister, if that's where it winds up. If she submits a waiver, then (click) you start sending checks to the estate. Again, probably worth explaining what an ugly mess that will result in. Maybe one of them will relent and accept the checks. Does the plan say the default is parent, then sibling, or are you going by state law? I ask because our plans say: spouse, otherwise children, otherwise estate. I don't know how common or uncommon it is to have parents and siblings in there but in any event it is the plan that controls.

When uncertain, I bail out and address it to "IRS: Attention Shan Montoya" and then say "Dear IRS." How long can we keep this one going...?

If you're going to do that, please do it with examples and comparisons using math, not words.

How many payments? If one or two...or a few, probably just start now and move on. They'll always be a bit behind schedule but as long as it's not going to cause a default, not much happens.

Best wishes Tom. My aunt used to make springerles. Good stuff!

Just to clarify, I agree with Mike and Tom. My suggestion was more akin to a parachute.

But if the groups aren't defined in the document, is that a good thing or a bad thing...? I tend to agree with you but perhaps an argument could be made that nobody is really assigned to a group until the contribution is finalized. I'm not saying I want to be making that argument but maybe it is not that different from "everyone in their own group and we will determine the allocation to each group when we make the contribution." IOW this approach is "the allocation to each group is X and we will determine who is in what group when we make the contribution." I doubt it's the way the document was meant to be used though.

Is this language in the document? Or is it just as you describe it - 'Group n shall consist of Category n employees'? And "n" is not defined? Are the rate designation percentages fixed in the document? If I understand it, you have rates of 5, 10, 15% in the document, but pick and choose who gets those rates?

Yes. That was the point. This usually comes up because/when the employer doesn't want to make a contribution.

I think you run the risk of putting in "too much" and the extra should theoretically be treated as a contribution. I'm not sure that picking a random interest rate saves that much time over using the DOL interest rate, which, for short periods, is just a fixed rate anyway.

I say no and I think this thread confirms it. But, there is nothing preventing the plan from paying the CPA (or TPA) and said recipient then refunding the overpayment(s) to the employer. I'm not sure I'd go back more than a few months on that though.

Ah ok. I agree with everyone else that depositing as you go is no problem. In fact it seems most p/r companies want to deposit as they go along; it fits with the "automated/not thinking about it" mindset. Shrug.

I think the bigger issue is that you can't add SH to an existing 401(k) during the year.

Believing it is one thing but whether it is true or not is another. I'd bet it is just some IRS logic that none of us understands and I believe it is harmless. The instructions are pretty clear that they want someone's SSN...we've been doing it that way since forever and will continue to do so.

I'll admit I'm not sure but I don't think it matters. Having said that...does it really matter who is/are the annuitant(s)? I'd be inclined to match up the old and new exactly just to be safe.

Good point; I lost track of the original source of the extra money. Allocation of contribution and allocation of gain/loss would be handled differently. I think I'd still ignore it based on the amount involved but make an additional/different disclaimer about it not being quite right.

I looked at the hardship section earlier and saw "Participant" and thought that's what it meant (not "Employee.") Thanks for mentioning this. And I agree, it is an excellent product and a superior value and they provide exceptional service.

We've done this...for the amount money involved, I say go for it.