K2retire

It let me do it, so there must be something else checked that is preventing it. You can always override an entry by right clicking in the field. But if you do that you won't be able to e-file.

On the chance that this was a serious inquiry, I would suggest that you consult your local bar directory for someone who specializes in ERISA. What you propose is not permitted, and your client needs more counsel than this message board can provide.

I had some in a trustee directed 401(k) plan several years ago. The issue that I recall was finding a fair market value that made everyone happy.

The menu across across the top has a choice that says either "Forms" or "Open Forms". Make sure that "show all forms" is checked, not "show forms with data". Select the 8606, and scroll down to the appropriate line. Or right click on line 15a of the 1040. Select "jump to related" then "Comes from 8606 line 7" then scroll down to line 22.

You're definitely on the right track with that thought.

The amount in box 4 doesn't make sense -- that is supposed to be the amount of tax withheld. In TaxCut enter the information from the 1099-R into the 1099-R worksheet. This will initially show the full amount as taxable. Then open form 8606. On line 22 enter your Roth basis as $20,000. The program will now show the full amount as NOT taxable.

$4,820 plus $15,500 comes to less than $20,500 on my calculator. Where is the problem?

It looks like you're first sentence answered your own question: "A fiduciary wishes to invest in an offshore private equity fund that is not a plan-asset vehicle." If you plan to use plan assets to purchase the investment, it had better be purchasing an appropriate plan asset vehicle.

I've used TaxCut ever since it was created. If you'll answer the questions I asked on March 25, there is a very good chance I can figure it out for you. It most likely has to do with the way those fields on the 1009-R are completed.

We've written thousands of them that way. But ours are specifically coded to allow the forfeiture to reduce any employer contribution, not just the type of contribution from which it was forfeited. Ultimately, reducing or reallocating gets you to the same place, it's just a slightly different route.

It's been a long time since MPP were permitted to have deferrals and thus match. You may have a hard time finding anyone familiar with this issue.

Apparently you have much smarter clients than I do!

No idea if it's still true, but just the mention of the term is giving me flashbacks!

The 401(k) plan can be designed to meet certain safe harbor provisions and avoid some testing. If the two plans exist in the same year they will need to be jointly testing for top heavy. Money rolled from the DB plan into the 401(k) plan will be a "related rollover" for top heavy purposes.

Wouldn't you prefer to have them in IRAs now and be done with those people? It's not going to get any easier to find them as time passes.

What does your 1099-R show for the taxable amount of the distribution? What distribution code does it show? Is the "taxable amount not determined" box checked? After you provide those answers I'll look in my copy of Tax Cut to see if I can figure it out.

Interesting. The Corbel prototype makes that selection part of the adoption agreement.

Does the document call for a discretionary match or a fixed match?

John, to whom would these allocated forfeitures be restored?

That's pretty funny. Why would the start now?

He can only do what the document permits. If it's not addressed in the AA, check the base plan document.

Were you over age 59 1/2 at the time of the distribution? If not, that is why it is saying you owe tax. If you are old enough, call the help number in the program. There are often small boxes that must be checked to make things work properly -- and they seem to hide in obscure places.

It is legally possible and no problem -- until the sole trustee, sole participant, employer becomes incapacitated or dies. Perhaps that is what the attorney meant.

The deduction limit is a plan limit of 25% of eligible comp -- in this case $57,500. However, the 415 limit, an individual limit, is indeed the lesser of 100% of compensation or $51,000. The correction for a 415 violation in most documents is first to refund salary deferrals, then if necessary, forfeit employer contributions. The amount over $46,000 must still be considered to be catch up to stay within the 415 limit, even if the total deferrals are now less than $20,500.

If the check was payable to another qualified plan, there was no duty to withhold. The fact that it would subsequently be cashed by someone other than the payee could not have been anticipated at the time the check was issued, so I can't imagine how the paying plan could have any liability in this case.