masteff

I'm w/ you there. Let's hope the "Happy Days" return and it's nothing but "Good Times" for all around. (sorry, couldn't resist)

Looking at Rev Rul 2002-62, you should be looking at either the fixed amortization method or fixed amortization annualization method, not the MRD method. The trick is to see if you can arrive at your $20K number using acceptible factors. I can't speak to the overall content of the site but the website www.72t.net has a calculator you might use and see how far off you are.

Latest update: New allegations revolve around inproper disclosure of "industry sectors" for investments. When asked about such, fellow celebrity spokesperson, JJ Walker, told investors, simply, "Dy-no-mite!!!"

Personally, "date of segregation" is the best possible for the recordkeeper because it requires zero adjustments for events between dates of "award" and "segregation". When the system can't do it automatically, they turn to spreadsheets. And I've seen a scary spreadsheet or two in actual use by recordkeepers which makes me certain that the less adjustments on divisions, the better.

As an alternative to the evil employer scenario... My first thought in reading the OP is it's a 2 person shop and the EE wants to put aside more retirement than 402(g) allows. The owner says, well, I could put more for myself in but I'd have to give you PS also, but if you'll pay me back for it, then we both win. So what about Lippy's comment above about CODA? I'll give you some of my cash since you put an equal amount into the trust for me. And OP says there was an agreement between the parties prior to when the contribution was made to the trust. (Or is that what everyone thinks is pattently obvious and therefore left unstated?)

Fact 1: it is your expert opinion that plan should not pay the expense, rather the ER should. Fact 2: you know (presumably because it's printed on its face) that the check issued to you is from the plan and not from the ER. Fact 2 violates Fact 1. If you cash the check, you will create the direct consequence of a plan fiduciary completing a potential prohibitted transaction. This makes the check tainted because cashing it results in another entity incurring an ethical violation. Therefore cashing the check would make you tainted. The question for your review is: could a prudent person potentially agree w/ the ED's decision to pay an expense from the plan's assets despite your more conservative opinion to the contrary? Question: speaking of questionable practices, could someone figure out a way for me to count this for my annual 2-hour ethics CPE requirement?

Guess I should correct myself somewhat ... the regs distinguish the ADP limit as a separate distinct item. But I still definitely find some subtle differences, especially statutory vs plan/employer limits. A couple places that start cross-referencing point to statutory items but fail to point to items that permit the plan/employer limits. Guess it depends on how literally you try to read certain lines.

I can't add anything useful other than the phrase state tax conformity. State tax conformity was a big issue right after EGTRRA. The American Benefits Council had a useful listing of non-conforming states. Unfortunately I don't quickly find anything on their site that looks at it more broadly than just the prior EGTRRA issues.

I knew as I typed that that I should have expanded... I took an employer-imposed limit to be one that's permitted under a plan but not explicitly specified in it. Best example being an ADP limit on HCEs which might change from year to year and the % is not explicitly specified in the plan text but has full power to limit deferrals. Personally, I'd rather "sponsor" imposed limit, but since the regs used the word "employer" (as quoted several posts above), I won't buck the system over it. Of course the word "employer" might have implications relevant to multi-employer plans.... *groan*.

Just to throw this out there for anyone perusing the regs further... I always took a suble but important distinction on this one between a service-imposed limit, a plan-imposed limit, and an employer-imposed limit. Each seems to have a slightly different role in how the rules play out.

I'd suggest reading IRS Publication 590 and the instructions for IRS Form 5329. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p590.pdf http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i5329.pdf

I'm amazed that people can take issue w/ my liberalness on hardship withdrawals and then conceive to exclude someone based on age in direct violation of the law and regs (see Code Section 410(a)(2)and Reg Section 1.410(a)-4(a) ). Only possiblity is to find a non-age factor on which the employee can be excluded. These would be things like, covered by a CBA, leased employees, part-time employees, and employees covered by another plan of the employer. Oh, and the alternative to coercion is poorly-considered pay negotiations... "Let me keep working so I can keep my drug prescription coverage and I won't take any other benefits". "Sure, we can do that... opps, why is he still getting profit share???"

Guess we should stop and clarify... did this just happen in the last one or two pay periods or does this go back much further? If it's one pay period ago, then use the administrative fix which is to run it thru the payroll system to correct the taxes. You then fix the recordkeeping so the right number of shares are in the right source. And lastly you take steps to ensure that the proper codes are in place in your payroll system and that your payroll department is properly trained in setting up Roth deductions. If the problem goes much farther back, then you'd go thru a longer analysis to figure out what corrections are available to you.

So is it a payroll error, meaning the deduction wasn't taken correctly out of the paycheck (ie pretax vs aftertax)? Or is it a recordkeeping error, meaning the money was simply posted to the wrong source code? If it's a payroll error, then fix it thru payroll and the adjust the sources. If it's a recordkeeping error, then simply transfer the money to correct source. Fix the recordkeeping on a share basis so the money's not distorted by market changes. Then make sure that payroll has the coding corrected so it doesn't happen again.

Surveying the wreckage of my retirement accounts, it occurs to me that converting my prior employer 401(k) to a Roth IRA is now 50% cheaper in terms of taxes than it was previously. It's days like these that make it hard to follow my own advice. The rollercoaster has gone into a tunnel and the fear comes not so much from the plunge itself but from not knowing where it ends.

These two items are actually contradictory. If you expect to live for another 27 years, then you have a fairly long investment time line. What's tricky is that you need a mix of current income and future income. Right now, your biggest enemy is inflation. You need part of your money to grow at least as fast as inflation so when you need that money in 27 years, it will actually be able to pay the bills you need it to pay. This is why many sample portfolios for someone in their 60's includes a small portion of stocks, say 20-40%. This exposure to stocks will allow part of your money to grow and help you fight inflation. Therefore, I would strongly encourage you to keep part of your money in an index fund. Don't try to pick a fancy fund with fancy investment strategies, just a plain simple S&P 500 index. So as the market recovers, then a portion of your money will grow and in 20+ years when things cost more than they do now, you'll be able to afford it. (Oh, and GMK's right on... pay off that credit card and don't run it back up. You're on a fixed income and the interest you're paying to the card company is eating away at money that could go to better purposes later on.)

Unless Sieve selectively omitted the lead-in clause "For each Plan Year", then the two quotations ARE NOT THE EXACT SAME. "For each Plan Year" introduces unnecessary confusion about how the limit is applied.... is it the "Plan Year" or "any taxable year of the Participant". If we read the sentence literally, then I would place weight on the words "during any" to arrive at the consensus provided above. I just wanted to be sure the difference isn't lost and the ambiguity not noted.

Is the world squeezing you in? Making you feel contracted?

Sorry, Carrot, but this board is primarily for persons who work with employee benefit plans. While there is discussion of IRAs and Roth IRAs, the type of question you're asking is unique to the type of investment (a foreign fund). It is beyond the scope of the normal questions dealt with here. As suggested, call the fund company. I assume that FAX is the ticker symbol for it. That makes it the Aberdeen fund family. http://www.aberdeen-asset.com/ Also call your brokerage firm. They're the ones who are likely responsible for taking the withholding. A specialist there should likely be able to explain if you'd be subject to it and if there are any exceptions that would apply.

If you have shortened a word or group of words, it's an abbreviation (inc for incorporated, cpa for certified public accountant). If you pronounce an abbreviation as a word, it's an acronym (modem for modulate-demodulate). http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/acronym PBGC is an abbreviation. ERISA is both an abbreviation and an acronym.

It's addressed in EPCRS Appendix A, item .08

Whereas one of the steps in an EPCRS filing is detailing what action have you taken to prevent the failure from recurring, I think knowingly letting this happen year after year would be frowned on by the Service. Why make it all be in the Plan? Why not pay some in form of regular bonus? It's the same result as doing a return of excess deferrals (i.e., cash is put in the participants' hands). Ignoring taxes, the only downside is people w/ lower comp would then be less likely to max out in the Plan for the year. So then it's a question of demographics. Question for others to comment on: can a profit share be defined as a % with a fixed dollar maximum (like 20% up to $30,500) (i.e., the annual additions limit minus the 402(g) limit)?

A quick news search does find a few current articles on the topic. It was covered by PBS' Nightly Business Report. Here's a basic AP article on it: http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081106/401k_insight.html I'll believe it when I see it. However.... just because a law is passed that doesn't require the distribution for the year, it might not override a Plan's written document which might make an MRD unavoidable regardless of the change in legislation. What that would mean is the Plan might have to distribute an amount but the participant could very well be able to roll it over to an IRA.

I'd argue the "d" should be in the first syllable... so quad-ro. For sake of comparison, consider the words "quadratic" and "quadriplegic". The question is can you add a slight pause after the "qua" and stil have the word sound right. On the note of silly English: ghoti = fish http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghoti

As changes are generally only permitted w/in the 30-day window after a qualifying event, you should simultaneously ask for the plan document AND inform them of the change in coverage in your spouse's plan and request to make the change in your plan. This puts your plan on notice of it so even if they take some time to review it, you've done your action w/in the proper time period. Oh, and if your company is big enough to have a benefits department in addition to an HR department, then talk to the benefits department directly; get HR out of the middle so they can't muddy the water.