K2retire

I wouldn't want to work any place where my own or my child's illness was considered to be an unexcused absence. (And for what it's worth I typically use fewer than 3 sick days per year.)

I expect you'll find reluctance to mention specific amounts on this board. I can tell you that we have 2 distribution fees: the one for hardships and loans is 50% more than the one for everything else. I believe that is intended to discourage participants from taking those types of distributions. We also waive the fee (except for hardships and loans) if the account balance is less than twice the fee amount.

And this is likely to really annoy the owner who was probably advised to take little or no W-2 comp to avoid Social Security and Medicare taxes. But you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Your revised example would start over at the rehire date because of the break in service between the first and second employment periods. (At least that was the case in the Corbel GUST documents. I haven't looked for this question in the EGTRRA documents.)

Does the document truly require the contributions -- or is the employer just telling people they have to do it?

I contacted the seller to point out the anti-assignment rules. His response is a bit scary: Hi, thank you for your question. I am the participant in the plan. Its a company that i no longer work for since 1998. In regards to legality of assigning my benefits, i am unaware that there is a federal prohibiting me from selling/assigning this plan to someone. I've discussed this with my lawyer, financial advisor, as well as the administrator of the plan of my interest in selling/assigning, this issue has not been brought up. i can certainly look into it

Technically the person who should be filing a claim is the plan trustee. Of course, if the trustee is the business owner it get sticky.

I thought e-Bay had rules against this sort of thing.

A properly prepared W-2 will not include that portion of the income that was deducted for the 125 plan. You can't deduct it a second time.

I thought you were required to aggregate all plans of a controlled group for coverage. If that is not correct, the rest is not an issue.

I thought the fact that you can't aggregate a non-safe harbor with a safe harbor, but the members of a controlled group must be tested as one employer meant that both companies had to be safe harbor or neither could be.

Within the last year it is highly unlikely that there has been a gain on your original investment. That eliminates the 10% tax penalty. If there has been a gain during that time period, I would say that your broker has probably earned the $100 due to excellent investment advice.

If you are filing 2008 on an accrual basis for purposes of reporting contribution receivables, I would expect you need to be consistent and also report payables. Otherwise I agree with BG.

But it says that the premium was paid by the company, not the plan. So that cash asset that you're crediting is not part of the accounting for the plan. Now your double entry explanation is off balance.

It could be if the client doesn't want to keep paying a fee for a new amendment each year.

The valuation of a limited partnership is not the same as their K-1. Whoever is ordering the valuation should be specifying a due date for it.

In general an amendment terminating the plan and bringing it up to date for recent law changes is required. All assets must be distributed and a final 5500 filed. If the plan is subject to compliance testing, that must be completed. You must also decide whether or not to file a notice of the termination with the IRS. That is a costly and time consuming affair. You should be talking to the professionals who helped you establish and administer the plan. They are in a better position to advise you about the needs of your situation.

Anyone who owns more than one home is likely to have utility bills for both that could be sent to the address of the home whether or not it is a primary residence. My family did that for years. One of the homes is likely to be in a location different from the employment location. So is the primary residence the one they stay in to go to work, or the one where they live while not working? My parents' personal property taxes were audited because the homes were in different states. Among the considerations of the auditor is where they were registered to vote, which state issued their driver's licenses and where their cars were registered. This is a difficult question and the answer is likely to depend on the mood of the auditor.

I believe that it is theoretically possible, but I've never seen it done. Perhaps this is because the amendment drafters often assume that such people have already been paid out. I've had many conversations with angry clients over the issue.

That was my understanding as well, although we never use this option so I'm not an expert on it.

So if the partial rollover prevents deducting any loss, does that mean that the entire loss should be part of the rollover? Or do you pro rate it as would be done for a gain and just lose out on the deduction?

Yes, and apparently the participant is wanting to specify that the entire loss goes to either the cash distribution or the rollover part of the distribution. (I've forgotten which.)

In most cases the requirement is that the bond be equal to at least 10% of the plan's assets. I've heard of a few insurers who are writing these policies to read 10% of the assets rather than a specific dollar amount. Holding certain non publicly traded assets or employer securities can increase that requirement.

There is a debate raging in our office, and I'd appreciate some input from others. If a participant, who has made Roth deferrals and has a loss on his or her account, elects to take a distribution partially in cash and partially as a rollover, can they choose how to allocate the loss between the cash and rollover? The Erisa Outline Book says that gains must be prorated, but apparently some of our Compliance people believe that does not apply to losses. I'm struggling to understand why losses would be treated differently than gains, but I do know that logic and IRS rules are sometimes mutually exclusive.

How can this be?! Because they're secretly aliens! (edit) as in Men In Black aliens, not Non-resident Aliens.