Kimberly S

Then you have your answer.

Where it differs for a partner is that their compensation is determined when the tax return is filed, not in advance. They may take a "draw" of that $100,000 that you mentioned, but if the business has a net loss for the year their compensation for plan purposes is zero.

Catch up contributions are the only amounts that can exceed compensation and still be within the 415 limits.

hmm... It is possible to import all sorts of investment data from the Internet into Quicken. Relius will also export to Excel. Do the folks at Intuit have any suggestions about how to get it from there?

Quicken will "print" to a tab delimited file. That text file can be imported into Excel. The Excel file will require clean up as it often includes extra columns. If I remember correctly, Relius can import from Excel. It's not an ideal solution, but I believe it can be done.

I don't know about the issue of changing from a SIMPLE to a regular 401(k). But an employer may not make contributions to a 401(k) in any year in which they have made contributions to a SIMPLE.

That is certainly what I understood -- although it may be the prejudice of my current and former employers rather than an actual rule. FYI, there is a similar discussion on the ASPPA discussion boards at the moment as well.

Was the form submitted before the first payroll date following January 1?

Speaking as a plan administrator, we generally rely on the W-2 as the definitive source of how much was deferred in a particular year. I can't imagine how a TPA or even in-house plan administrator could possibly get it right if deferrals on 2008 salary were supposed to be 2007 contributions.

Ask the client how they would respond to an IRS or DOL auditor who wanted them to come up with a number of hours. When they figure out the answer to that question, they will have an answer for you as well. Hopefully, when you put it to them that way it will get them to focus on an answer.

But in this business, what makes sense is rarely the correct answer!

Some companies do show the match on a pay stub even though they are not required to do so. If you've previously seen them there, by all means ask HR what has changed. It could be that they are using new software that no longer allows them to report this additional information.

Different DST clients (fund families) pay for and receive different levels of service and differing customized reporting.

Not only will your W-2 be late by March 15, 2008, but the deposit of Social Security and Medicare withholdings will be late and probably subject to penalties as well.

If the loan is not secured by the home, the interest is probably not deductible as mortgage interest.

You mentioned paying the down payment from the IRA. If you are anticipating only paying the down payment from the IRA and making the mortgage payments from some other source, it is unlikely that the property can be considered to be owned by the IRA.

Why not just do it? Not everyone wants to allow non spouse beneficiaries to rollover their benefits. In the view of certain narrow minded types, that could be interpreted as condoning same sex partners or approving of other non marital relationships that are perceived as morally objectionable. I've even heard some talk of plans wanting to allow children and grandchildren to rollover, but prohibiting other non spouse beneficiaries from doing the same thing. There are a lot of bizarre ideas out there!

With a QACA plan you can choose to do a non-elective contribution instead of the match. I can't imagine why anyone would do both. I think J4FKBC's comment was intended to suggest that the match would not be appropriate in the case of a "maybe" notice because the absence or presence of the match stands to influence the particpants' deferral choices.

Could it be that December 1 was that firm's deadline for the latest they would accept the work?

If the plan does not have an actual limit written into it (as the prior responses seem to assume), but is merely telling HCEs to limit their contributions to 10% based on the ADP test results from last year, this conversation changes. Without a 10% plan limit, the contribution does not become a catch up until it hits the 402(g) limit or the ADP test fails. Because of the peculiar way that ADP corrections are calculated, it could end up that someone else gets hit with a refund and your $5,000 over 10% of your pay is still fully counted toward the test that causes the need for the refund.

In service withdrawals are a protected benefit. If the plans truly merged, that provision should have carried forward. If the old plan was terminated and some participants elected to roll their balances to this plan, it would not have to carry forward.

An additional question to add to MJB's list: How can the employer know the employees' suitability? Perhaps their spouses have high income or a rich uncle left them money that would allow them to invest in this vehicle even though their salary implies that they could not.

I don't really know the answer, but in this case I wonder why they wouldn't terminate it at the end of 2007.

Look at Rev Proc 2006-27, appendix B, Section 2.07(3)

QDROphile, See J4FKBC's quote of the regulations above.