Draper55

if you are not required to report it and don't need it for allocation purposes then I would not calculate it.

client's plan receives a k-1 for investments in an lp and an llc. does the schedule i 3a question on partnership interests include all investments reporting on a k-1 regardless of entity type? for the schedule i 20% investment question is the k-1 reported capital interest considered a single security? I would think yes.... lastly, the fact that the investments are shown on a brokerage statement is not material as to either the exemption from the audit requirement or the ability to do a 5500sf filing....correct??

I have a solo 401(k) plan. owner/participant(US citizen) wants to take about 5% of plan assets and invest in a foreign (UK) corp with three other foreign(not US citizens) owners. THis corp would then become 100% owner in a domestic(US) LLC. ALthough I am not totally clear on the PT issue, I am thinking this is ok; but, I do not know about the UBIT issue. Would he be considered an active investor in this LLC??

none that i am aware of...

for this with an open mind thanks for your responses..the question really revolved around the draft qdro being written in such a fashion that the alternate payee would get more than the settlement agreement confers because the alternate payee is also a participant...I think CADMT grasped this to some degree..I am a TPA here asked to review the draft QDRO and i also have a copy of the settlement agreement...

i have a situation were husband and wife were in the same plan. wife quits and the marriage is dissolved. the settlement agreement by the judge basically split their combined interest in the plan 50/50. attorney for the alternate payee(wife) writes qdro to say that alternate payee will get one half of partiicpant's plan interest. I do not think this is correct because she still gets her interest as a participant; hence for her to get 50% of his interest as an alternate payee she would end up with 75% of their combined interest..In other words giving her something as a alternae payee does cannot cancel what she has as a participant ??

If a participant terminates and the plan allows for terminated participants to continue their loan repayments, does it matter if the participant takes the balance of their account at a point in time before the loan has been entirely repaid?

typically a tpa will charge a flat fee and a per participant charge for 401(k) administrative services. I am wondering if firms define a participant differently in their pricing...for example would you ony include people with account balances at year end? what about people that were paid out during the year? what about people with no balance at year end but in the plan eligibility wise? what about people in the plan during the year eligibiity wise but leave with no benefit? any comments are appreciated...

someone could receive the deminimus pension(10k a year) without comp yes??

used to see this 10-15 years ago but have not seen it recently(last 5 years).

Agree with Andy's comments....further, what if the term vested dies and you do not find out about it for some time? Clearly now they will not enhance their status by attianment of any age or return to service..In this case you would be valuing additional benefits that could never be paid..with active lives and even with retirees to a lessor extent you will know about their death much sooner and adjust the valuation appropriately..

if deferrals are returned, whether it be for 402(g) excess or to correct an ADP failure, is the effect on the 5500 simply a matter of whether cash or accrual accounting is used otherwise ..does the return impact the year of contribution or the year of return.. also how do most peope handle participant statements with returns...reflect the return in the year of return??

Section 404(a)(1)(A)(i) contains a parenthetical clause .....(or for any prior plan year). It seems that this subsection is now bypassed for single employer plans and instead goes straight to 404(o) which does not have any reference to prior plan years. 404(o) seems to read that the deductible amount is the larger of the cushion type maximum and the minimum for plan years ending with or within the taxable year. Was this intentional(assuming I am reading it correctly) or can we still deduct minimum contributions for a prior plan year made during the taxable year which were not previouly deducted. I am reproducing the relevant language from 404(o) below: (o) Deduction limit for single-employer plans For purposes of subsection (a)(1)(A)— (1) In general In the case of a defined benefit plan to which subsection (a)(1)(A) applies (other than a multiemployer plan), the amount determined under this subsection for any taxable year shall be equal to the greater of— (A) the sum of the amounts determined under paragraph (2) with respect to each plan year ending with or within the taxable year, or (B) the sum of the minimum required contributions under section 430 for such plan years. Is the language "each plan year" used to cover a situation where you would have a short year and a regular year both ending in the same taxable year?

I am just listing the group by names. The group of course will be the younger eees..

Is there any overall age discrimination issue in Choosing the youngest ees to meet the 40% test in a combo plan even if only using the .5% accrual?

this is a 5% owner still working..so i guess my thought is that i calculate additional accruals as if 401(a)(9) did not exist and then adjust this accrual down for the AE of the payments made. I then add this net accrual to the existing rmd stream. just wanted to make sure i am not way off in my approach.

Participant turned 70.5 in 2012 and commenced rmd on 4/1 /2013 for 100%j&s amount with cola increasing at 4.75% as annual annuity(not monthly). Need.to make adjustment for 2013 accrual. Benefit at 12/31/2012 was AE of NRA amount(formula late accruals are much smaller). At 12/31/2013 i compute plan benefit as AE of NRA benefit. Next subtract similar amount as of 12/31/2012. Then compute 12/31/2013 AE annuity of benefit paid during 2013(since no risk of forfeiture accumulate payment with interest only before annuitizing). Subtract this piece to get my life annuity additional accrual. Turn this into 100% j&s annuity and add to 1st year payment increased at 4.75% to get my year two annual payment amount. Does this sound correct?

I have used the cash basis approach before where it worked(i.e.,>250k on an accrual basis but not cash basis) but in this case the account exceeded 250k during 2012 and at eoy.

have been contacted about a one person plan where assets>250K in 2012 for first time. filing has not been done. question is whether filing late with a reasonabe cause of reliance on third party professional who failed to advise client has any merit. or would it be better to go dfvc using 5500sf and pay the $750...that woud be my recommendation.. any thoughts are appreciated.

i do not have 415 mastery on my bucket list so please forgive my ignorance in asking this question.. suppose participant retires under 100% comp limit in year x and plan contains 415(d) cola adj language for years after termination(x+1,x+2,etc.). if plan is subsequently terminated in say year x+3 and the participant with spousal consent now elects lump sum. Must the lump sum be based on the comp limit back in year x or can it be based on the adjusted limit?

in reviewing the responses to this post, i am wondering has anyone ever heard the IRS opine that it is flatly unreasonable to assume other than a lump sum payment in a one person(including with spouse plans)plan. further, suppose one makes such an assumption, is it then even more unreasonable to switch back?? under the MAP-21 scheme annuity funding could produce much smaller contributions depending on plan lump sum factors...would the IRS actually have a problem with smaller deductions for mr. owner(and mrs. or vice versa)? On audit, are the going to say you underfunded the plan?

i had an insurance agency adopt a companion db plan for 2012. they paid their 2012 pbgc premium in april.

when filling out a 5330 for a failure to meet the minimum funding requirements for plan year x(i.e., 4971 tax),and assuming plan year =tax year=calendar year, do we enter tax and plan year x on the 5330 or year x+1?

apologize if this has been asked but i did not seeing it looking through past posts..my question is what is the definition of self-employed for characteristic code 3b..better yet what does a plan covering self employed mean exactly? are we talking about sole proprietors/partners/llc members or is a one person c corp included in this description? what about a two person c corp with a 100% owner and a secretary..it still covers an individual who surely would claim to be self employed... all responses appreciated.

IMHO i think this is doable assuming the plan is written to allow for such a distribution(some are not)and other violations do not occur such as 436, 401(a)(4) 110% rule etc.