PensionPro

yes and no in that order

$5,500 is the limit per individual not per IRA

he can receive zero ps

no

eob agrees ... The transition relief granted by IRC 410(b)(6)(C ) appears to contemplate some form of acquisition from an unrelated entity. The formation of a new subsidiary by a company, as part of a business restructuring, or acquisition involving entities that are already part of a related group, are probably not covered by the transition rule.

179 exps are deducted before deduction of the employee cost and therefore before se tax calc. see instructions to box 14 of k-1.

I believe # 2 creates a controlled group so you would end up with a single employer plan.

before concluding they are not a controlled group couple of questions to consider 1. are they In a community property state? 2. do they have a minor child under the age of 21?

There is a school of thought that believes that for the th minimum contribution key/non-key employees are determined as of the last day of the prior plan year. Therefore current comp should make no difference.

I’m a shareholder and an employee of an S corporation. Can I contribute to the company’s 401(k) plan or establish a self-employed retirement plan based on my S corporation distributions? No. Contributions to a retirement plan can only be made from compensation, which, in the case of a self-employed individual, is earned income. Distributions you receive as a shareholder of an S corporation do not constitute earned income for retirement plan purposes (see IRC sections 401(c )(1) and 1402(a)(2)). http://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/Retirement-Plan-FAQs-Regarding-Contributions---S-Corporation

Speaking of real life would your answer change if the employee terminated in the meantime say in 2012?

Thanks for the responses. As much as the PA would like to accept the QDRO to avoid additional legal fees and rigmarole the issue for the PA from the compliance standpoint is the risk of not following the letter of the court-approved QDRO. The QDRO is clearly flawed in that it is asking the PA to do something that the PA can not. We are in consultation with the parties involved to determine if they can propose a legal solution that would alleviate the risk for the PA. After all the sticking point only relates to earnings for less than a year in a DC plan. The issue would have been avoided if the attorneys for the participant and AP had consulted the PA prior to finalizing the order, which I thought was customary. Incidentally, the QDRO could have been more meticulously drafted. It lists the custodian of plan assets as the PA but the PA is willing to overlook these details of lesser importance. Edited to Add: Part of the discussion involves requesting PA of prior plan A to provide earnings calculation for 2011 as a professional courtesy. Thanks QDROphile for that recommendation!

MEP A spun off single employer plan B eff 1/1/12. PA of Plan B receives QDRO with a date in 2011 as the date of property settlement and stating that earnings will calculated as of a date in 2011. PA of Plan B has no authority or resources to calculate earnings prior to the plan effective date in 2012. Can Plan B resolve this issue through negotiation with legal counsel for participant and AP or is it a more prudent course of action to reject the QDRO and request a modified order? We are the TPA advising the PA on the acceptability of the QDRO. Thanks for your comments and perspectives.

Filing for DL is not REQUIRED. Is the lawyer providing a cite from RP 2007-44?

"They are stating that the purchase involved a stock split and that the plan should not have been terminated." Are they stating there is a legal restriction or that it was an imprudent decision to terminate the plan?

yes he is entitled to the th minimum.

You can have less restrictive eligibility requirements than the 3-of-5 so you should be fine. But you can not exclude employees who have worked 3-of-5.

Thanks, that is very helpful. Yes it is a top-hat plan sponsored by a tax-exempt entity which is neither governmental nor a church. It is unfunded but the underlying assets are being moved from an insurance company to a mutual fund company. In restating the document the employer is inquiring whether amending the forms of benefit is permissible. Our function is to advise the employer about ERISA and the Code, however the entity's attorney is involved to advise on other legal aspects. Good points about the contractual obligations and possible existing annuities. We will have them review those issues.

Plan allows for lumpsum, instalments and annuities as the allowable forms of benefit. Can the document be amended to remove annuities as a form of distribution for all assets or is there any cutback issues? Thanks!

1-877-829-5500 You can ask for the name and phone number of the agent to whom it has been assigned.

My recollection is that a revocable election creates a CODA so the cite is the correct one. An irrevocable election applies to all future plans of the employer. I believe it applies to related employers as well. My interpretation is that the partner in the OP elected out of all of the plans. Check the document or consult an attorney though.

Unfortunately not in a position to do more indepth research but hope the attached helps. Annualization.pdf

No

only if they fail the substantial presence test

If the plan does not add back the deferrals, then compensation is box 1. Why would pre-tax 125 deferrals be included in box 1 in any state? Which states include pre-tax 125 deferrals in box 1?