masteff

Sec 201(a) of WRERA uses the phrase "calendar year 2009" and 201(b) uses "during 2009". You could argue that a distribution by 4/1/10 is for calendary year 2009 but is it worth the fight? Also, the reason to wait until April 1st is to defer the taxable income into the later year, but if you're rolling it over, then there's no tax reason to wait. Full text of WRERA here: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/ge...7327enr.txt.pdf

But, correct me if I'm wrong, it's only needed if the plan has a deminimis cashout limit greater than $1000. Notice 2005-5 might be of some use: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-05-05.pdf

In my eight years as a plan administrator with 3-5 hardships per month, I can state for fact that it arises often and that it is absolutely not a problem. We have to be careful when we say "the need exceeds the non-loan balance"... what we really need to be saying is "the need exceeds the funds available for a hardship and/or in-service withdrawal". This is because many plans have separate rules for pre-tax deferrals vs other monies (especially company contributions, eg safeharbor plans).

Actually Thornton said the current assets are daily valued, which would not necessarily include the proposed asset of s-corp stock.

See this recent, similar thread which contains at least one personal experience w/ mandatory participation. Edit: helps to actually paste the link: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=43433

Have you asked specifically how they calc the match? Do you have their actual worksheet or do you only have the results and are reviewing them? If they calc by the payperiod and don't have a true-up, then it is possible that a person contribute higher in one period and lower in another and the result be less than optimal. But if it's a year end calc or they have a true-up, then your analysis is probably right.

Why round the percentage? Why not calculate the actual match money based on the schedule and round that to the penny?

Brings back memory of a high school Chem II project that resulted in approximation of Avagadro's Number. I remember just enough of it to know I'm not recalling a critical step to from a couple of measurements to a number. I know we were within only several levels of magnitude, which given the crude measurements was pretty good.

Did it happen this year? Can you get the employee to enroll at a higher rate and then you can make sure any match that otherwise would have been made is corrected? Matching is really the biggest issue if there's not too much time passed.

The ability of a participant to request that loan deductions be stopped has been debated some on this forum with no definite conclusion. Other than some abiguity on the actually stopping of the deductions and what might result from that, the plan has no other consequences. You could search the forum using the words: loan default state law (put a + in front of each to only find threads w/ each word).

Have you tried the IRS's mail-forwarding service? http://www.irs.gov/retirement/article/0,,id=110106,00.html

I had to fix a not-too-different 990 error last year. My opinion is your better off addressing the issue in a penalty abatement request letter. My feeling is the people in the abatement area actually have the authority to use common sense and fix the problem permanently. My theory on my 990 abatement request was: the more exhibits/attachments, the better. Include copies of the 2004 and 2005 5500's, as well as plan amendments for the change, and copies of documents relating to name and EIN change of the company. Give the abatement department every possible detail so they can reach the conclusion you want and then can fix it.

That sucks big time. Hope you're back on the trails soon. Let us know if they catch the losers.

Does anyone know of an up-to-date source that fully lists the current status of all EGTRRA sunsets? Some were fixed by PPA'06, but there were so many parts of EGTRRA w/ sunsets, it'd be nice to have a clean and clear listing of what's going to revert back on us.

Not of pre-tax deferrals (without "hardship") or QNECs, but in-service distributions of company contributions, after-tax contributions and rollover contributions might be allowable (subject to certain other restrictions on holding periods, vesting and such). Unless it's a safe harbor plan, or possibly a few other Code provisions, which explicitly restrict distribution.

No, only deemed once (otherwise you'd have double taxation, as being deemed makes the loan balance taxable to the individual). My understanding is that the payments should go into an after-tax source as that portion of the participant's balance has now been taxed.

My understanding is it will be deemed distributed (meaning it becomes taxable income for the individual) but remains an open loan (unless your plan provides for the defaulted loan to be offset which is the standard terminology generally referring to when the defaulted loan balance is reduced to zero). So no new loans until the current one is repaid (with the payment(s) going into an after-tax source).

I printed this to a pdf file since the Chron tends to remove articles after some period of time. ContinentalPilotsHoustonChron101909.PDF

mjb - but read how it defines the cost of living... it's the current versus the base year (not the prior year, which is how SS is indexed). That's the point Tom was making. It's indexed based on increase in current over base. So Tom's point was that as long as the new number is above the base, then you could have a decrease from the prior year. That said, Tom then notes that 415(d)(2)(B) says "adjustment procedures which are similar to the procedures used to adjust benefit amounts under section 215(i)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act". So then the decrease is blocked.

I may have slightly over-portrayed the mole hill... my IRA lets me do a combined sell-purchase so I can move directly from one fund to another with a single transaction, even across fund families. If my money were directly invested at, say, American Century and I wanted to directly invest in, say, a Vanguard fund, it would take a couple days plus minimal paperwork on both ends. Point being it's not immediate and does require some effort to move a direct investment between fund companies.

But given what Tom posted, you don't meet the definition of paired plans, which says they both have to be standardized; your OP says one is non-standardized. Also you say the DB plan says: "IF this is a paired plan..." That's a big "IF".... what does the 2nd plan say? That Rev Proc that Tom cited says the plan doc must contain pairing provisions... so if the 2nd plan is silent or otherwise fails to have sufficient language, then they're not paired. As a CPA that I once worked for said: always try to figure why it's not broken before you go trying to fix things.

Do you have a 401(k) at your employer? If so, that investment firm may waive fees if you also open an IRA with them. However, many firms waive fees if your balance is large enough (it varies how much, $25,000 being a general ballpark). Don't forget that you can also invest directly with some mutual fund companies. This has the advantage of not having to pay annual account maintenance fees (but check w/ the fund company as I can't say it's 100% true). But the disadvantage is if you want funds from different companies then you have to open multiple accounts; it also makes it harder to move from one fund to another (primarily if the other is with a different fund company); and, some fund companies have higher minimum purchase requirements for direct purchases then they do thru brokerage firms. My best advice is to go visit the Motley Fool website, dig thru their educational information and browse their boards to see what investment firms people there like or dislike (and why they feel that way).

See IRS form 8854: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f8854.pdf (instructions: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i8854.pdf ) And IRS Publication 519, Chapter 4, Expatriation Tax (you'll have to figure out yourself whether it applies to you or not): http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p519.pdf If you are uncertain on how to apply the rules to your individual circumstances, then you should seek the advice of a competent professional tax advisor. The State Department may have resources available to help you figure it out also. EDIT: It would also depend on whether you have any US source income in the future. If you no longer have any source income, then you'd have no future obligation (but be sure to properly file form 8854 as may be required).

See also IRS Publication 560, page 8, bottom of 2nd and top of 3rd columns: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p560.pdf

Just confirming the math is correct. (I'll leave the legal stuff to folks like him since he leaves the accounting stuff to folks like me )