BG5150

Thanks, ETA. It's been so long since I've worked with a plan that allowed after tax that I forgot the procedure for reclassifying the amount as after tax.

She cannot get more than $472 for the hardship, because that's all she has available per the rules. You apply your $75 fee before or after the distribution, it won't matter, as that should NOT be part of the distribution (IMO). So, after the dust settles, she will have a $3 balance. (BTW: a 20% gross-up of $400 is $480, not $500.)

What is the amount involved for late contributions for the 5330? I would usually use the interest (and the interest on the interest) as provided by the DOL calculator as the amount involved. However, someone here uses a spreadsheet with the gross amount of the late contribution and a loan factor and interest rate. Obviously, the latter method is more complex. Is there anything out there that tells us how to (easily) calculate the amount involved?

How does money that wasn't taxed get post-tax basis? Do they issue a 1099 for the amount?

Does a 2-yr old get paid on a W2, or 1099 for something like that?

There is no minimum wage, however, there are state laws governing the employment of minors that may be applicable.

Are you sure they're not subject to ERISA? When making this determination, a plan covering only partners of a partnership is different from a plan covering owners of a corporation. Good Luck! Where does it say that? I've heard it mentioned, just never seen it in print/

So he's not really "forced" to sell his home. It's just that circumstances are such that it's the best way to accomplish his goal. He is not being "evicted." He has a "bill" from his ex-wife for $30,000, and selling the house is an unfortunate way to satisfy that debt. It is not a letter from the bank that says "pay up or get out." he already "owns" the house, so he would not be purchasing a principal residence. This is all assuming the plan uses merely the safe harbor conditions for issuing hardship distributions.

Maybe you've found a new space in the QP world...

DC Plan. One insured. Death Benefit a/o 1/1/15 was 3.6 million. I'm not sure who the loan was made out to. So we agree this has a potential to be a cluster-fudge.

I would call the IRS and ask why the 'P' is there.

This is a correction, not a forfeiture. EPCRS says that excess amounts (plus earnings) must be held in a "suspense account," the proceeds of which must be used to offset any Employer contributions (except deferrals). And there can be no ER contributions (except deferrals) until that account is exhausted.

I got this annual statement for an insurance policy in a plan of mine, but I'm not sure how to value it. Open Value: 625,000 YTD Policy Change: -20,000 Total Policy Value: 605,000 Loan Principal: 570,000 Loan Interest: 14,000 Total Indebtedness: 584,000 Surrender Charge: 110,000 Net Surrender Value: -89,000 I would think the net surrender value is my number. But it is negative because of the loan. Do I ignore that in the calculation? That is just use Policy Value - Surrender? And what really has me concerned is the half million dollar "loan" Any thoughts or suggestions?

^ and the taxpayer can claim the $6,000 over 402(g) as a "catch-up", but neither plan is affected. So, the only concern for this plan (or the other one) is if the participant contributed more than $24,000 combined. And if it's split up between two or more plans, it's up to the participant to notify one or more of the plan administrators of his error.

A deferral is a deferral is a deferral. Until you hit a limit: 402(g) ADP Test failure threshold for an HCE Plan-imposed deferral limit 415 Then, if the participant is 50 years or older at any time during the year, up to $6,000 (for 2016) can be considered "catch-up." Anything above those amounts, are treated as an excess pertaining to whatever limit they exceeded. By "system" do you mean a payroll program? Or is it the record keeper's software? Or the TPA's software?

I thought that a SH match could not match more than 6% of deferrals (FBJ's example doesn't) and also not yield more than 4% of compensation (which this example does).

The problem with doing an 11-g amendment, is that it is supposed to be a 1-off deal. Part of the conditions of such an amendment is: 401(a)(4)11-(g)(3)(vi)(A) You may be having this problem year after year, so it is contrary to the regulation to do something like this every year.

It is an owner-doctor?

To the second point, his compensation from all members of the group will be counted together.

Would it be fair to say that accounting firms seeking make-work revenue by providing auditor's reports for 401(k) plans with well under 100 actual contributors don't have any kind of legitimate objection to this otherwise entirely beneficial change? I find that auditors perform varying levels of investigation. Some are only concerned the financials tie from the reports to the form to the ER records. Some go through the year-end work to see the proper people are covered, that is, they check eligibility and vesting for everyone. Those in the second group can say they are providing a valuable service.

I`m sure there are a lot of accounting firms and CPAs who don't want that "account balance only" rule instituted.

Is this a controlled group situation, or a multiple employer plan?

The instructions for this item read: [quote[special rule for certain participant-directed transactions. Transactions under an individual account plan that a participant or beneficiary directed with respect to assets allocated to his or her account (including a negative election authorized under the terms of the plan) should not be treated for purposes of line 4j as reportable transactions. The current value of all assets of the plan, including these participant-directed transactions, should be included in determining the 5% figure for all other transactions. I take this to mean you ignore the transaction if it is merely more than 5% than the participant's own account balance. But what if a single transaction is greater than 5% of the plan assets as a whole? For example, an owner with 70% of the assets of the plan, all invested in one fund. Then he transfers 50% of his stake in that one fund to another fund. That is obviously more than 5% of plan assets. Does that get reported? Or, does the above mean that you ignore ALL transaction in participant directed accounts, but you include their assets to see if any transaction in a pooled portion of the plan is more than 5% in total? For example, plan has 50% of funds in participant directed deferral accounts and 50% in ER directed PS account. A transaction would have to be more than 5% of the combined assets in order to be reportable?

Where does it say that a sole owner of a C-Corp cannot file an EZ?

What kind of plan is it?