masteff

2012 hasn't been announced yet. http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0,,id=156624,00.html

Was this a DC plan? Look to Reg 1.401(a)(9)-2: "Q–6. For purposes of section 401(a)(9)(B), when are distributions considered to have begun to the employee in accordance with section 401(a)(9)(A)(ii)? A–6. (a) General rule. Except as otherwise provided in A–10 of § 1.401(a)(9)–6, distributions are not treated as having begun to the employee in accordance with section 401(a)(9)(A)(ii) until the employee’s required beginning date, without regard to whether payments have been made before that date." So as QDRO said, 2010 was only an MRD if the plan document somehow made it an MRD.

I'm with Bird. Unless some odd mechanism of the living trust failed to make it exist after his death, then it was the beneficiary. A trust might fail to be a "designated beneficiary" under Reg 1.401(a)(9)-4 but it's still the plan beneficiary. Failing to be a "designated bene" for purposes of 401(a)(9) merely means the account is locked into the 5-year method, which it is anyway because (I presume) lifetime distributions weren't started within the required time frame. Step one is find the living trust's trustee.

It's definitional... how can you be prevented from having an HSA by participating in an FSA if you can't have an FSA with an HDHP to begin with? See IRS Publication 969 page 4 "Other employee health plans. An employee covered by an HDHP and a health FSA or an HRA that pays or reimburses qualified medical expenses generally cannot make contributions to an HSA." http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p969.pdf However, there are complex rules to prevent the abuse and misuse of Section 125 Plans, so it's not always as simple as you saying "I want this instead of that" or "put money here instead of here". Your employer has to comply with laws that neither you nor they control. I would give them a copy of that page from the IRS publication along with a simple note saying "I am covered by other medical coverage which prohibits me from contributing to an HSA, I therefore request to continue participating in our company's FSA. I realize that participating in the FSA prevents me from contributing to an HSA." Change your words from "don't want" to "can't have"... you can't have an HSA so you want to be in the FSA. If they still say no, then politely request a written explanation and come back here and we'll try to help you make sense (or nonsense) of their answer.

From the table you provided, your rates are based on age. Age is not a health factor. Age based rating is not uncommon, especially in small plans. You might find this educational: http://nahu.org/consumer/GroupInsurance.cfm

So you make a committe that's the trustee with the committee delegating authority to you. The committee could be yourself and your spouse (or trusted CPA or trusted atty, etc) as ETK suggested. However you need to review the reg that the person is referring to: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2010/apr...401(d)(1)-1.pdf And this reg is cross referenced by that one: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2010/apr...cfr1.401-12.pdf It appears that a key question is if you are an "owner-employee" as defined in 401©(3): (3) Owner-employee The term “owner-employee” means an employee who— (A) owns the entire interest in an unincorporated trade or business, or (B) in the case of a partnership, is a partner who owns more than 10 percent of either the capital interest or the profits interest in such partnership. To the extent provided in regulations prescribed by the Secretary, such term also means an individual who has been an owner-employee within the meaning of the preceding sentence.

You'd have to look to the tax treaty. If it doesn't qualify as a rollover as Kevin notes then the money would be a contribution to the IRA and subject to the standard IRA contribution limits. You then also need the tax treaty to determine if the contribution would reduce the person's Dutch taxable income.

Prior discussion: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=38998 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=37848

I'm not familiar enough w/ the final regs to know if they ever cleaned this type of scenario up but older threads on here reached the conclusion that because he's an LLC member then he can't participate anywhere in the control group, that being an LLC member overrides the W-2. A few threads provide citations but they predate the final regs so take them w/ a grain of salt. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=+...+cafeteria+plan

You too!! And for anyone who missed them, here are the 12 "surprises" in the Thanksgiving Google Doodle (I figured out 6 of them, someone else peeked at the source code to find the others)... Pirate: http://www.google.com/logos/2011/thanksgiv...le=T11%7C95552a Magician: http://www.google.com/logos/2011/thanksgiv...le=T11%7C77a0ab Astroturkey: http://www.google.com/logos/2011/thanksgiv...le=T11%7C098196 Vegan (tofu): http://www.google.com/logos/2011/thanksgiv...le=T11%7C2b3747 Tophat: http://www.google.com/logos/2011/thanksgiv...le=T11%7C055525 Ski: http://www.google.com/logos/2011/thanksgiv...le=T11%7C5aba06 Princess: http://www.google.com/logos/2011/thanksgiv...le=T11%7C867234 Football: http://www.google.com/logos/2011/thanksgiv...le=T11%7C113a49 Disco: http://www.google.com/logos/2011/thanksgiv...le=T11%7C269b02 Nerd: http://www.google.com/logos/2011/thanksgiv...le=T11%7C331383 Surfer: http://www.google.com/logos/2011/thanksgiv...le=T11%7C487217 Google bike: http://www.google.com/logos/2011/thanksgiv...le=T11%7Cba6310

What type of activities are these 10 people engaged in that they fear loss of their IRAs? Why aren't they carrying appropriate liability insurance if they feel so much risk?

The magic question is how many employees does the company have... if 20+ then can't do anything to induce employees to switch to Medicare. The 2nd link below says it originated w/ TEFRA. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=43465 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=40951 https://www.cms.gov/medicaresecondpayerandyou/ "Group Health Plans (GHP) An employer cannot offer, subsidize, or be involved in the arrangement of a Medicare supplement policy where the law makes Medicare the secondary payer. Even if the employer does not contribute to the premium, but merely collects it and forwards it to the appropriate individual's insurance company, the GHP policy is the primary payer to Medicare." http://www.cms.gov/EmployerServices/05_sma...erexception.asp "If an employer, having fewer than 20 full and/or part-time employees, sponsors or contributes to a single-employer GHP, the MSP rules applicable to individuals entitled to Medicare on the basis of age do not apply to such individuals."

No, the agent thinks he can protect his commission and possibly add new commissions. My general rule of thumb: don't take advice from an agent who wants to sell any form of insurance as an investment. During my 7 years in benefits administration, the worst misinformation I had to correct for participants came from insurance agents.

IRS Reg 31.3121-1(b): "Corporate officers. Generally, an officer of a corporation is an employee of the corporation. However, an officer of a corporation who as such does not perform any services or performs only minor services and who neither receives nor is entitled to receive, directly or indirectly, any remuneration is considered not to be an employee of the corporation. A director of a corporation in his capacity as such is not an employee of the corporation." They can't just declare themselves to be independent contractors in order to circumvent the restrictions of ERISA. Until proven otherwise, they are employees and can't use any income however paid from the C-corp to fund an SEP.

Form 5305-SEP is perhaps THE easiest IRS form to complete so don't force it under the S-corp just to save effort. Does the 1099 income actually belong to the S-corp or to the individuals? Does the C-corp have any other employees? Is their independent contractor status legit or would the IRS rules really deem them to be employees? It's at least a red flag to simultaneously have W-2 and 1099 income from a company (especially that they happen to own). Edit: why aren't they simply doing the SEP under the C-corp?

If the divorce is being fough tooth and nail, then you'd insist that whatever ratio of the account is deemed marital property would be applied to the loss as of the date of division. So the spouse might be awarded 1/2 of the gain as of the date of divorce plus subsequent gains and losses, meaning the spouse would only get $7,500 {(20K * 1/2) - (10K * 1/2 * 1/2)}. Using date of divorce plus earnings/losses is important in accounts with subsequent contributions and withdrawals. Edited for bad math Unless you're horse trading as suggested above... in which case the spouse might get $X as of the date of the property settlement plus earnings and losses. Some QDROs even make it easier and just say $X as of date of division of the account.

Looking at notices 2008-30 and 2009-75, the IRS doesn't clearly call for an amendment so I'd say it depends on existing plan language relating to rollovers and direct rollovers. PPA Section 824 amended the definition of qualified rollover contribution in §408A. If your plan is too narrow (such as saying "IRA" versus "eligible retirement plan") then you might need to amend.

And it's Nigel Tufnel Day... http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-talk/1...-185526454.html "These go to 11" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeOXsA8sp_E

Your confusion point is the words "enroll" versus "contribute". You cannot contribute to an HSA after you enter Medicare, but you can still own an HSA with an existing balance from which you can take withdrawals.

My understanding is the rollover from QP to IRA doesn't count toward the restriction which applies to IRA-to-IRA rollovers. See page 18 of IRS Pub 590... rolling it into a QP would have effect of making it his own (if it's not already). http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p590.pdf

Is he wanting to play a few rounds w/ Bernie Madoff? I'm no expert on PTs but I don't see any way that wouldn't be a prohibited transaction. You could provide him with these links: http://www.irs.gov/retirement/article/0,,id=163722,00.html http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/publications/fiduc...onsibility.html

To me, education includes the objective application of facts and theories. "Your salary is $X per year, we have 24 pay periods, so at least X% would result in the maximum contribution for the year." "You should not contribute more than X% aftertax to avoid the annual additions limit and losing out on company contributions." Advice, on the other hand, requires the subjective application of eduction to a person's situation. "You should do Roth deferrals rather than regular pre-tax deferrals." Now, the original post asks what is the "obligation" to educate employees about the limits. I'd say the better topic is whether someone is at risk of losing out on company contributions. At most, when you communicate the new limits each year, you could add a few short sentences about how a person could lose company contributions and say "you should review and if you need help calculating then come see me". If people don't read and review, then it's not your problem. Scenarios that might result in losing company contributions: Deferral too low for full match Deferral too high with pay-period match (hit 402g limit so match stops before YE) Plan allows high % aftertax (annual additions limit can cap company contributions) {can anyone think of any other scenarios?}

What Tom explained is also discussed on page 10 of IRS Publication 525.

My very non-expert understanding is: it depends. It depends on the exact wording used in the POA. It depends on governing state law. It depends on the IRA document and the policies of the IRA company. And half way thru, you switch from asking about an IRA to asking about a trust. A trust is an even bigger "it depends" because state law is going to play a role in both governing the POA and governing the trust. You really need to consult a lawyer. This is beyond the ability of strangers who do not have access to the complete facts.

A recent discussion: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=49851