K2retire

If the participant doesn't actually receive the money until 2013, would you report it as income in 2012 or 2013? I don't have a good basis for an answer, but I think you can argue that it shouldn't be taxable until the year received. Of course, that will subject it to the additional 2% FICA withholding due to the 2012 holiday.

I am NOT an expert on this topic. I am also a pension administrator, working for a benefits firm that is much more involved in health benefits than retirement plans. Since the new health care law has passed I've been getting lots of questions from our health folks about the concepts of controlled groups and affiliated service groups. Apparently there is going to be more similarity between the two worlds than there used to be. How that might translate into business opportunities, I have no idea.

Why are you testing on a weekly basis rather than an annual basis?

I'd love to know where you found this form. Great-West has always told me that no prepayments were allowed unless it is to pay the entire outstanding balance.

If I remember correctly, the Relius document gives you a choice of match "per payroll period, no true up" or "annual". If you choose the per payroll period option, the following sentence appears in the SPD: "The Administrator will determine the amount of the matching contribution made to the Plan on your behalf for each payroll period."

You mentioned they are still related, just not enough to be a controlled group. Are they an affiliated service group?

Since may employees don't know what "perjury" means, penalty of death is more likely to elicit the desired response!

As I approach my 30th wedding anniversary, I'm having some difficulty imagining what this documentation might be or where I might obtain it. So far, none of my employers has ever asked for such a thing. Neither has the US Postal Service, from which my husband is retired.

As a practical matter, most plan sponsors don't understand the question. If they are posting a 2012 contribution and see a forfeiture balance available, they are not likely to ask if it was a 2012 or 2013 forfeiture before they use it.

The HR person is furious because she specifically asked about this before the amendment was drafted. Management will have to decide the priorities, and clearly they think it is a case of waiving the old magic wand. Since the other project involves something needed for whatever it is that they manufacture, I can understand the plan being a lower priority for the company.

Client asked for an amendment adding Roth. HR person specifically asked when it should be effective and was told immediately. After the amendment was written (effective June 30) and signed on June 25, their only programmer announced that due to other priorities, it may be several months before he is able to make the necessary changes to the payroll system. Any suggestion about what might be a reasonable administrative delay for implementing such an amendment?

It was specifically in regard to whether a husband and wife can claim not to have their shares in professional corporations attributed to one another.

When I taught Business Entities to paralegals I also tried to emphasize the need to consider retirement plans in M&A transactions.

One thing I didn't see in the attachment that I've heard is a common management function is the authority to sign checks.

Since when do real world complications have any bearing on IRS or DOL positions?

The firm I work for already has a separate health insurance division. I've been doing quit a bit of work with those folks trying to help them learn about controlled groups and affiliated service groups.

RMDs are not eligible for rollover, so no 20% withholding requirement.

Nor would the government, right? Ironically, this was just before the limit went from $100,000 to $250,000 and the market went down. There was only one year I had to file before terminating the plan. But then again, had I not been in the industry I wouldn't have known to file a final return and the receiving IRA 5498 would have alerted the IRS.

An example of the potential headaches: I had a solo plan through a well known mutual fund house. They provided all the necessary documents for free. I calculated my own contributions and deposited them each year. When the assets reached the point that a form 5500-EZ was required, they said nothing. If I hadn't been working in the industry I would never have known about it.

This question doesn't make sense. If the owner employee is not directing the investments at the brokerage house, who is? I've never heard of such a plan not being a "self directed" plan. Where are they hoping to find more investment options than with a brokerage firm?

Are you saying that the father opened the mail addressed to the children? I believe that is a violation of Federal law, although there might be some exception if they are minors.

Most of the plans that I see specify that the employer is the Plan Administrator. So if the employer and the Plan Administrator are the same natural or corporate person, doesn't that change the answer?

Thanks. Once I saw the contract it became clearer. It is a rental agreement, with an addendum for the option to purchase. The option makes it clear that there is no decision about a purchase until a specific date in 2014. And the deposit that they wanted for a hardship is non-refundable if they do not make the purchase.

Client e-mailed asking if the down payment on a "rent to own" agreement will qualify as a hardship for the purchase of a principal residence. I'm not familiar with how that type of arrangement typically works or even if there is a "typical" arrangement. Any suggestions about what we should be asking?

There are plenty of opportunities for CE for less than $2,000 per year. If that is your only reason for not joining, you ought to reconsider.