K2retire

Ironic. Freudian slip, perhaps! But mostly like just an indication of my poor typing skills.

But he'll also still have the $40,000 that he hasn't paid back (at least theoretically).

If you deposit money to a plan before it is withheld from an employee's pay, it is an employer contribution and must be allocated according to the document terms for employer contributions. Since that is highly unlikely to be allocated only to the one participant who thought they were prefunding their own deferrals, that usually is sufficient explanation.

They are not required to have you sign either of those things. It is good practice to do so (for the very reasons you're discovering) but there is no requirement to do it.

It sounds like the plan was amended along the way to change from the 3% nonelective contribution to a match. When that amendment happened, all participants should have received either a Summary of Material Modifications or a new Summary Plan Description. Based on the SPD you received recently, that change probably happened in 2006. If the 2006 date is correct, the sole contribution that you received would have been for the 2005 plan year. It would be based on your 2005 compensation -- and depending on the terms of the plan might have been 3% of your compensation only from the date you became part of the plan until the end of the year. Did you ever receive a Safe Harbor Notice? The plan sponsor should distribute that every year and it would have included information about the required safe harbor contribution, whether it is a nonelective contribution or a match.

The place I worked last year used Web Client and had nothing but heartache from them -- even though we had used them for several years to get our clients accustomed to working with it before e-failing was required. Although I've changed jobs, I understand they are having problems again this year. My new employer uses FT Williams, and it seems to be working fine.

QACA match is a totally new money type, so the vesting can apply to everyone. Of course, many of them will have already met the 2 years of service, but that's a different issue.

If the document says you can only make changes at a certain time, then I don't think you can cease at any time. From the wording of the original post, I suspect RPG is hoping that there is a reg that contradicts the document language.

It's a relatively common provision to say that once a participant has had a defaulted loan they are not eligible for any further loans.

1099-R for 2009? Also the IRA will file form 5498 showing receipt of the distribution.

It won't help in all situations -- but for the outrageously small example above, since the forms direct you to round to the nearest dollar, could you not take the position that the nearest dollar is zero?

I have always heard that an employee is an employee in the eyes of the government. The corporation is considered to be a separate entity from the owners.

If your original decree awarded you half of the retirement benefits, you may already have the DRO and just need to get it qualified by the plan. But again, you need a lawyer to make sure it gets done properly. A good lawyer can make the difference between getting what you expected and getting nothing due to a technicality.

I suspect the ambiguity is due to the combination of the election being made before the current plan existed and hte current plan not allowing such an election.

Has it been more than a year since the original date of hire? In that year you've already indicated that the person had more than 1000 hours. Has an entry date passed since the Year of Service was completed? With those answers in mind, check the document. Most of the ones I've seen will allow that person to enter on the date of rehire.

Many people try to claim that houshold employees are in fact independent contractors in order to avoid paying Social Security, Medicare, unemployment and such.

Is the accountant saying that this non-profit has never gotten their 501©(3) approval to be considered at non-profit?

Why a transfer agent would only accept a POA less than 6 months old is beyond me. If it it is valid when it is executed then validity continues until revoked or or the principal dies. What if the principal was incpacitated and could not execute a new POA? In many cases the agent does not accept appointment as attorney in fact untl many years after execution by the principal. The new NY POA form requires all third parties to accept a valid POA regardless of how old it is. The Third party can demand that the agent provide an affidavit that the POA is in full force and effect when they are asked to accept it. I would review state law to see if a third party can refuse to accept a valid POA executed under state law. I agree that what they are doing is wrong -- but I was not high enough in the food chain to persuade them of that.

From a legal perspective, that is totally correct. However, the transfer agent that I worked for refused to accept a POA that was more than 6 months old. I'm sure that will be litigated eventually, but in the mean time it complicates things for trying to get anything done.

Because the correction was not made within 2 1/2 months, the company will be subject to a 10% exise tax.

Another way to solve it: 3(4x-2) = 12x divide both sides of the equation by 3 and you are left with: 4x-2 = 4x Although at that point is should be obvious that the equation isn't equal, you can take it a step further by subtracting 4x from each side to get to" -2=0

I have also seen overfunded plans offer an additional benefit amount that participants thought were going to be a reduced amount. The notice must be read very carefully.

Annuity based products often come with high surrender charges if you later decide to move the plan to a different vendor platform or for participants who take distributions. Be sure to figure that into the total cost comparison.

It would be taking a distribution to repay a bank loan -- not to pay medical expenses. It would only be possible if your plan allows a hardship for repaying bank loans.

Even if you find the original, and have to provide it o the IRA holder, insist that they take a copy and return the original to you!