K2retire

But is a money market fund a security? Most like they weren't actually holding dollar bills.

A participant is being told that his house will be sold on the courthouse steps for back taxes unless they are paid by a specific date. It's not exactly a foreclosure or eviction, although the result is the same. How do others feel about this as safe harbor hardship reason?

This may be an oversimplification, but as I understand it partners have no income until December 31. Terminating the plan June 30 doesn't change that.

Plans that amend out of safe harbor are required to use current year testing.

Does history support this presumption? Not recent history!

DOL has to justify their funding by showing how many criminal cases they have successfully prosecuted as well as the civil settlements they have obtained. It would be a conflict of interest for them to fail to prosecute. And since they are saying they are all about preventing conflicts of interest, one wonders if they have given any thought to their own/

That's because IRS employees cannot fathom a situation where someone would be willing to work without being paid! It is foreign to their world view.

Isn't that exactly what we'd all like to say to clients from time to time?

The record keeper for our plan has already begun including this information on statements. The amount they projected for my monthly benefit seems extraordinarily high. A participant who had no idea how they came up with that figure could easily decide that he or she no longer needed to save anything since the projected benefit looked so good. I believe that is exactly the opposite of the intended result.

Statute of limitations used to be based on filing of Schedule P. Now that we don't have that any longer, when does it begin?

The client may have read about this and be confusing the terminology when asking the question.

Company A, with a 401(k) plan, is about to acquire Company B, with a SIMPLE. I know that a company is not permitted to have both type plans in the same year. Is there some special rule in an acquisition situation where they were not related for the part of the year when both plans existed?

I agree with you. I've seen record keepers write, and have the client sign off, on their own loan policies that conflict with the plan's loan policy. I've also seen call center staff give wrong information. Start by asking the record keeper to produce any documentation they have for this "rule".

It is a common misunderstanding among advisors. Because IRAs can be considered as a group and the RMD need not be taken from each separately, people assume the same is true of qualified plans.

We've been hearing that on audit, clients who don't provide a true up are being told that their SH match doesn't follow the formula in their document, even if the document clearly spells out no true up. Our document is silent on the use of true ups, but we've been advising clients to do it.

The estate should have a separate EIN, not the executor's SSN.

You may have better luck getting a copy of the form you signed from the 403(b) provider than the IRA provider. It would have been their form and they probably never provided a copy to the bank.

Thanks for the history Tom. Having only been in this business for 15 years, I wasn't sure if it had ever changed.

But you would be very useful in a debate tournament!

Integrated formulas are supposed to make up for the lack of employer contributions on the higher earnings of those who earn more than the taxable wage base. Now that some of that group will be paying a higher rate of tax for their Medicare premiums, will anything about Integrated formulas be adjusted?

And, although the earnings may, indeed, be from capital gains, taxable distributions from a qualified plan are taxed as ordinary income, not the lower capital gains rates.

With 50% of the participant leaving, I bet it is a partial plan termination.

It was my understanding that the new law eliminates the need for in-service distribution or rollover eligibility. In other words, any money could be eligible for conversion at any age.

Since all of the employers are the same business owner, he should be the only person who needs to adopt the plan. As a sole proprietor he may have separate dba names for this businesses, but he is still the employer.

The use of the word "may" rather than "must" strongly implies that it is optional.