GBurns

The "Dolgoff Plan" is a NQ deferred compensation plan. NQ Deferred Compensation Plan is a generic term. The use of annuities and/or life insurance to secure the availability of the promised compensation is "generic" and not patentable. Whatever is is that is claimed to be proprietary by the "Dolgoff Plan" is no restriction on having a NQ DC Plan using annuities and/or life insurance. Do you know what is claimed to be proprietary other than the name? smhjr, Have you found out anything else about the "Dolgoff" or any other plan?

I suggest that you search this Board for related threads such as this one: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=27215

Any of the investment providers are able to run a projection for you showing not only what the taxes would be for the conversion, but also the long term differences in accumulation and taxes for both choices so that you can see whether you prefer tax now or tax later. Make sure that you use low, medium and high future tax rates since your retirement tax bracket is not yet known. It is good advice to contribute to your new 401(k) so as to get as much match as possible. Whether you go higher than is needed for maximum match might be based on the quality of the available investments compared to what is available for the IRA. I did not understand what buxbaum2 meant by "invest in pooled funds with other employees". Pooled funds should be avoided and your account should have fairly frequent valuation and allow frequent low cost changes in investments.

See what too much spiked egg nog causes. Happy Holidays to all.

pax, What does it matter what is the point if you don't care?

There will never be enough rules and regs to explain everything and so were are left with doing that which is pragmatic and not specifically prohibited. Recission means recission and as also pointed out by mbozek, changes, adjustments and corrections etc are allowed within the same year. And although there is a "60 day rule" there is still the "General principle that any payment can be returned without tax consequences within the year it is made-thats why it is is called recission." That is why although tax deposits are "regarded" as final when the 941 is filed, you can still correct anything for any quarter of the previous year up to the filing of the 941 for the 1st Q of the next year. That is why you can correct a W2 etc even years later. Whether it be advanced commissions, overpaid salary, bonus, or the sale of securities, the rescission and subsequent correction of IRS etc reports is nothing unusual. And as also pointed out by mbozek there would be no 1099-R etc so there is no possibility of IRS discovery from this aspect. That is not to say that this is what should be done here, but it is a valid plan of action.

austin3515 If they maintain the "Individual" plan while having the "employee" plan that seems to be the same as a single employer having 2 401(k) plans at the same time. Are you saying that is allowed?

Maybe, but Who? Does the money belong to the employer, the employee or the Plan? What does the Plan and the Regs allow to be done with this money? Can anyone other than the "owner" of the money dispose of it in any manner they choose, even with permission of the "owner" and do so with no adverse consequences such as No tax deduction, no expense deduction, constructive receipt etc?? Those are much more important issues that have to be resolved, making the non-payment of FICA of not much importance.

Use a Google search. There are many articles from the major benefits lawyers that give either both sides or warnings. Stockton Kilpatrick, Reish Luftman, Groom, E. Lynn Nichols come to mind. There are also very old predictions of the eventual IRS actions by www.taxprophet.com

Under the Treas Regs regarding Tax Shelters etc, not only is the definition of a Return Preparer broad enough to include a TPA, there are other sections that also would create liability for anyone who has any connection to the issue. You have an accident while driving a car, it does not matter that it is not your own car. You obstruct traffic and someone else has an accident, it still does not matter tha it was not your car. Analogy aside, look at the Treas Regs and Circular 230 (both current and Proposed).

Let me warn you about "minor violations". Examiners have performance requirements which include productivity. Productivity can only be measured by number, complexity or size of cases handled. Cases have to resolved and the more in the examiners favor the better. If you have an examiner who gets a case, What do you think that he will try to do if he sees that the issue that attracted attention is turning out to be minor? He has you on the hook, so he looks for leads to other issues. Since you have no idea what he will find, it is best to not have him attracted to you in the first place. As Pensions in Paradise points out minor can become major.. and very easily.

The setting aside for or pre-funding of an HRA is not subject to 419. The funding of an HRA is not subject to any 90 day limit or account limits.

What shouldn't he worry about ? The IRS rules, the DoL rules or Both?

Kirk Will you also elaborate on "amount rules"?

Who would hold you responsible and on what charge if you stated that XYZ Company for a male non-smoker age 28 with a premium of $3,000 per year illustrates $XXX Guaranteed $xxx -y Current at age 65 with Death Benefit of $YYYYYY and which is ZZ% rate of Return? This would be no different from the numerous very compliant ads that you see in the media. It has everything that is needed under almost any state insurance advertising and solicitation laws that I can think of. Can you give the names of a few companies whose website allow WL illustrations or quotes to be run by non agents? I operate in the world of taxation and employee benefits, which is why I am able to cover a few other related areas. Your clients will of course be satisfied with your results using LEAP. they know nothing else. But that is not the point, You were the person touting LEAP, I only questioned why you thought it was better and what else did you compare it to. This you have evaded answering. Nothing is wrong with LEAP. Only your opinion is being queried.

I don't think that it matters whether the spouse has individual or family coverage, but more whether it is a HDHP. If not HDHP then no HSA. There is a new IRS Pub that explains, I think that it is Pub 969.

If you do decide to administer this plan, I suggest that you do document your decision in writing. Our local IRS District Office would have a field day holding you as a responsible party to an abusive scheme under the new rules.

On the contrary, I have always found it very easy to trace the funds. The employee contributions are easily quantified from payoll records, the submitted claims are always recorded, the admin fees are set out in a contract and there is an audit trail for those payments. If there are employer contributions those are just as well documented. The rest is simple arithmetic.

I doubt that you will find that useful as a definition. How could you use that to quantify "substantial" which must be quantified to be used?

All the plans that I have seen use valuation at a certain date, which is why the "wiggle room" referred to by himt4 is advisable.

I do not think that it has yet been established that these are really leased employees or who is the employer etc.

For these you will also have to address the issue of what is a "substantial risk of forfeiture", which was not defined.

I am very familiar with the LEAP system and its private label versions. It is not the only system that does what you say there are others. So since you do not sell LTCi you cannot give an explanatory quote, BUT you do sell Life Insurance, yet on the other thread you cannot give an example of LI for investment purposes in comparison to a Mutual Fund in a Roth IRA. Do you not think that this raises questions about the credibility of LEAP, LI in general and you as their advocate ? Filling up the Message Board is not a problem. There are very many readers who do not ever post but who use what we post as guidance. As a result the more discussion and disclosure or rationale and reasoning, the better it serves the general community. The only reasons not to post are private issues, or fear of rebuttal, neither of which matter much to me.

Raytheon is a very accessible company so you might want to call Benefits Dept and ask if they really do this. Bear in mind that Raytheon has many operating divisions and subsidiaries so you will need to know more specifically the "Raytheon" that is allegedly doing this whether you call that unit or HO. The unused funds revert to the Plan not the employer.

I am puzzled by the question. If this forfeiture account consists of money accumulated from the forfeiting of balances from the accounts of former plan participants, it is the entire amount that is in the account which must be reallocated not the "loss". There is no loss there is only a lower amount in the account available for reallocation. If you reallocate this "loss" what would you then do with the remaining account balance???