K2retire

What they are telling you is to run the money you already owe through the HSA before you use it to pay the PT to lower your tax bill. Since you have to pay it anyway, you might as well get the tax break for paying it.

That was about the same time that people were having major difficulties getting personal income tax refunds from the State of Missouri. Fortunately that has improved.

Don't know the answer to your question, but I have heard that enforcing the fidelity bond requirements is one of the initiatives that prompted the hiring of additional DOL investigators recently.

That's the way I read the instructions last time I had to deal with it. Don't you love government logic?

Why is there an inability to determine the amount?

Our audit costs are 3 times administration costs. Maybe it's time to migrate south to Saint Louis for cheap audits and less brutal winters. Cheap is in the eye of the payor. Here are a couple examples of DB audit costs: 360 participants, $13K; 175 participant, $5K. There are smaller firms that are willing to undertake the audit for far less than the big boys. On the 3 to 10 times, are you talking about DB or DC plan audits? As far as the weather, that's somewhat relative. In fact, my relatives find St. Louis brutal. We're seeing $8-15,000 for DC plans.

Andy, where are you finding auditors? What we typically see in the Midwest is that the auditor charges 2 or more times what the plan administration costs. In the case of a bundled provider, the audit can often be 10 times the annual administration fee.

California often looks at everything as community property without regard to when it was acquired.

And my 28th wedding anniversary!

Sorry, I should have explained my question better. All participants receive a notice of the funds that are changing and which dropped fund is mapped to each new fund. But that notice has not typically talked about whether or not a particular investment is a default fund. My question is if that notice is sufficient for exisiting participants who are in the default fund, or if they also need an updated QDIA notice before the next annual QDIA notice.

If a plan changes its QDIA fund mid-year, and a notice of the change, information about the new fund and mapping plans is sent to all participants, is a new QDIA notice also required?

I agree with Jim. Hopefully presenting it in the context of aiding a criminal will help with those who object within the firm. If it doesn't one has to consider whether it is appropriate to continue working there. And that's scary in this economy!

Does that surprise you?

Did either company have a board resolution declaring the profit sharing contribution before the plan termination?

The POA document should spell out what the agent can or cannot do.

The participant count won't drop, because of the account balance from participation in the last half of 2011. The way I read the OP was not that the HCE was excluded from the plan, but that he was no longer eligible for employer contributions. I think that distinction changes the need for a top heavy minimum contribution to the non-key HCE.

Did Hancock re-notice her? December of 2010 to September of 2011 seems to me to exceed the 180 day period that the Special Tax Notice is valid.

Doesn't the amount still outstanding at the end of the 5 years become taxable because it is a prohibited transaction (not a default)?

Thanks for the citation. The riddle is also great.

I am at a loss as to how to deal with this situation. Our client has a bundled 401(k) plan with a well known insurance company. The Corbel Nonstandardized document clearly specifies that match forfeitures must be reallocated as an additional match contribution. The match forfeitures were reallocated to the match money type, but the allocation was done on a pro-rata basis to eligible participants without regard to deferrals. When I questioned the provider about this I was told that if the client wanted the match forfeitures to only go to participants who deferred, they needed to specify that in the allocation conditions in the document. The base plan document clearly defines match as a contribution made on account of deferrals, which is exactly what I've always understood. But this provider disagrees.

I've long understood (and advised clients) that trying to figure out the logic behind IRS and DOL rules is an exercise in futility. And yet, I can't seem to stop myself....

The thing that makes no sense to me is the stance that it had to be 100% vested when deposited rather than when allocated as a safe harbor contribution. Perhaps my balance forward training is clouding my understanding of the issue, but until the money is allocated as safe harbor contribution, it shouldn't matter.

I don't know. I'm still waiting on delivery of the EGTRRA document and amendments to verify if the history that was explained to me is accurate. That the bank trustee would have signed a document prepared by the new recordkeeper, without having control of the assets does seem odd.

Because the corporation is considered to be a separate legal person, independent from the owners, the IRS considers the owner to be just another employee whose deferrals must be made timely.

We have been asked to draft plan termination paperwork for a single participant profit sharing plan for a sole proprietorship. Years ago when the plan was established a corporate trustee was named. Although the plan appears to have been amended and restated on a timely basis, the plan sponsor has had no contact with the corporate trustee for many years and would like to terminate the plan without involving them any further. I know that the employer has the authority to terminate the plan. I believe that there will be no problem with having the assets distributed, as they are no longer held at the bank that is the trustee. Other than notifying the trustee that the plan is terminated, is there a requirement that the trustee sign off on the resolution?