GBurns

Does anyone know why this RR was even issued? What prompted it ? What is it trying to resolve ? Any links to any discussions or articles on the subject would be greatly appreciated.

The few (2) that I have seen were provided by 2 large product providers. They were not very good but that was back then, with the new regs things might be different. So I suggest that you ask a few.

I thought that there was a lack of communication between our intelligence agencies, now I see why it might even be worse with our armed forces.

Gary In post #1 you said that the owner contributed $10,000 to the plan, now you talk about contribution by the corporation. Which is it ?

There must be more to this. In whose name is the investment held ? On whom (name) was the call made ? Since the call was not made to or in his name, why did he think that it would beokay to pay a bill that was not in his name etc ? Why did the partnership accept a capital contribution from a party who is not an equity holder ? Probably the simplest thing is to have the partnership return the funds and have the plan respond to the call as it should have.

What you describe should be readily available from the investment providers. It might even be available from the enrollment company. I also think that it is available on many freely accessible sites. Try a Google search on "retirement calculator" or a refinement.

Then you need no cite, logic should suffice. If the amount set aside is excessive, then any addition would only increase the amount of excessiveness and therefore be afforded the same treatment as the initial excessive set aside amount.

There is an old adage that states that great minds often think alike ..... etc. I will leave it to others to decide which is applicable. I really do not know what vebaguru meant but I am able to read the posts in the thread and decide what it is he was responding to initially. He then confirmed and clarified in his subsequent post making it unnecessary for me to make assumptions. Gary separated the items in his post with "With that said ..." clearly separating the question to which vebaguru answered. The 419 question has nothing to do with the resources question. I was not trying to speak for vebaguru as much as I was trying to avoid you creating more confusion. I look at a Forum as a group of people sitting around a large table discussing an issue. If one person tries to dominate, mislead, or change the topic, it is allowed that any other participant can ntervene, raise an objection or point out the "error"/variance/transgression.

Don't Teamsters members have a legal plan as a members benefit ?

Try the large local law schools for some help. I have heard that some law schools or professors like to have actual cases for training. Choose carefully even if free and it may be better than no legal advice. You seem much too accomodating, so I suggest that you stop it. If he wants to get his hands on the money let him do the work. Stop doing it for him and stop giving up things just because he says so.

Don In post #16 you asked "How do you have excessive income?" What does that have to do with your quote of 1.512(b) ? Where did you get the term "excessive income" ?

Don Specific sections of what ?

Don The cost is simply the time and effort to go back and read the posts. It was a simple response to a simple question. Those are the 2 resources that he advises to be used for a basic understanding of H&W plans.

That suggests to me that you have been calling a local branch office. You should be only calling the Head Office and the Executive Office.

I am puzzled. Who do these auditors want to make the decision as to whether a PT or not? Self determination or self-incrimination seems dangerous. Who really has such authority, anyhow ? Certainly not the plan Sponsor. That seems like trying and convicting yourself. Why is it necessary that it be noted ?

Unfortunately I do not know the secret loop, but I will warn you not to believe what you have been told by someone at Fidelity. Too many people are too ready to give authoritative answers about things that they do not know. It seems that 90% of people are really wrong 90% of the time, even about their own jobs (I read that somewhere long ago and have no idea who). As a result, you should take what the said with a grain of salt and try again. Bear in mind that this is not the everyday issue that anyone deals with. Find someone at Fidelity who can direct you to the source of the list or the source of any literature that relates to the issue. The author of that literature wuld know why the reference is there. Another possible place is their Compliance Dept. All literature has to be approved as being compliant with regulatory requirements.

An advisor is recommended for purposes of education not for picking a fund ? Buying a "basket of stocks" is vastly different from buying a mutual fund. The "basket of stocks" that sellers use to illustrate the value of long term investing is usually hypothetical. I have yet to see an illustrative "basket of stocks" that was anything but that.

How long will that take and how much will it cost if the selected fund loses 12-20% each year or drops 50% in year 3 ? Especially in these times, the return of your money is more important than the return on your money. What is the track record of these funds ?

Bird It is conceivable that anyone can replace the brake pads on their car and save some money. But such a person would be foolish if they did not research first or learn from someone else first. Some people do not know where or how to reaearch, some have problems reading technical stuff, and then you have those who have no tools with which to do the job in the first place. An advisor could give valuable directions and insight and also advise on the tools needed. Spicoli may not know that he/she might not know enough. I can think of no other way for him/her to check their knowledge level.

The wording used in the OP makes me wonder if I really understand the question. Are there conditions for the employer's "discretion"? Is the contribution based on a formula that the employer uses to determine the "discretionary" amount ? Is the "set amount" really stated as such in the documents or is it $30,000 becuase that is what it was calculated to be in prior years and has become "normal" ? Why would the employer want to increase the amount ?

IMHO, you have already made missteps; 1. Get financial advice from persons whose expertise you can verify. Not credentials, I said expertise. 2. Selecting a type of fund before you have finished researching. Why would a Target fund be better? The name is not what makes it good.

I do not think that any of us could or should advise you in that regard. You have to make your own determination as to what serves you best, assuming that you do have a choice.

I suggest that you do some research to better understand the issues. Use Google to search for "401(k) withdrawal taxes"". A 401(k) is a tax deferred vehicle. It is not tax free. The 20% withholding is only withheld until you file your tax return. How much you get back or how much more you owe depends on many things. It is also possible to fully forfeit the 20% and still owe taxes. In general, taxes are owed on the increase in value of an investment. In other words the amount you made on the investment. Threfore you have to know how much was invested. The amount invested is your cost or basis. The bigger the difference the bigger the gain, the bigger the taxable amount. So if you have no basis you would owe more taxes. It does not affect the amount you receive, but it affects the amount you will owe.

Patrick I get the feeling that your concern is caused by your definition of "retirement income accounts" hence your phrasing " church 403(b) accounts MUST be retirement income accounts ". The amounts set aside in 403(b) accounts are for retirement income but are not necessarily held in retirement income accounts. Retirement income accounts are just an alternative savings vehicle to annuities and mutual funds.

Proportionately is the fair way to do it, otherwise someone stands the chance of being whacked heavily by taxes.