K2

No, it wasn't distributed.

It's not clear what you're asking.

I would file a 2016 as not final and with an asset amount equal to the returned check (i.e., it's a receivable).

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p560.pdf See the worksheets in publicatino 560

I don't know the answer, but I would imagine that if you can afford the quarterlies, you aren't going to get the waiver. The one and only one I had was rejected by IRS, client was not funding, and ended up with a deficiency. Client filed for a distress termination with PBGC, which they granted and took over the plan.

Bear in mind that not all plans allow hardship withdrawals.

Hard to imagine that it would pass coverage

You did the right thing in asking the Plan Administrator how to interpret the language regarding the payment of benefits under the disability plan, and how QDRO's would work. I have a feeling that this isn't going to be answered in your favor, though, since the probable intent of the QDRO in the first place was that your ex would get half of your retirement and/or disability at such time as you began receiving either. Your best bet would be to go back to your ex and ask her to agree to a new QDRO in which she gets nothing. Good luck.

Same concepts apply to both

Assuming you followed the normal rules for forfeiting (i.e. 5 year break), then the answer is no, forfeitures do not have to be restored.

Compensation can't be determined until the schedule C is done. It's technically earned on the last day of the year. The IRS has said it's OK to contribute from draw provided you fix it when schedule C is done. I'll try to find the cite on this.

I don't think this is a true up, so I don't think there is a BRF. Draw is not salary. Earned Income is salary.

I would agree with that. Compensation isn't known or earned until the Schedule C is done. Everything contributed before that based on draw, while allowable, is really just pre-funding.

Two snippets from the EOB Collection steps. If the required withholding has not been deducted from a plan distribution, the withholding party should make reasonable attempts to collect the withholding amount from the recipient of the distribution. If future distributions will be made to the recipient, the make-up withholding could be recovered from those distributions. To avoid the penalty under §6651(see the discussion in Part E. of this section), the withholding party may need to pay the underwithholding with Form 945, and seek a refund following the recipient's payment of the tax, or request a waiver of the penalty with the Form 945 filing. And... 2. Failure to file Form 945. Since Form 945 is a return required under IRC §6011 (see Treas. Reg. §31.6011(a)-4(b)), it is subject to the failure to file penalty under IRC §6651. The penalty also applies to the failure to pay the tax required to be shown on the return (e.g., failure to withhold, as discussed below in Part F. of this Section VI). The penalty is based on the amount of tax required to be shown on the return. A failure to file Form 945 on a timely basis can result in the following penalties from the IRS: (1) a penalty for a late filing of the return, and (2) a penalty for late payment of the tax. The penalty for a late filing is 5% of the amount of the unpaid tax for each month, or part of a month, the return is late, up to a maximum of 25% of the unpaid tax. However, if the return is more than 60 days late, there is a minimum penalty of $100. The penalty for a late payment of the taxes is ½ of 1% of the unpaid tax for each month, or part of a month, the tax is unpaid, up to a maximum of 25% of the unpaid tax.

You do not have to wait.

Yes, an RMD is due for 2017. She can roll over all but that amount.

Comp definitely should be from 7/1. More importantly, upon audit, IRS would likely say the 3 month requirement wasn't satisfied and therefore ADP testing would be required in year one. Just basing that supposition loosely on the facts as you've portrayed them. I'd disassociate myself from that accountant.

I guess it comes down to how you parse the language in the document. You said they needed to have a nonforfeitable interest in the plan. Did they? If not, then what does the document say next? But that said, I'd be inclined to let them in immediately, barring anything specific to the contrary.

A SH plan has to be at least three months.

Any thoughts on whether the following constitutes an ASG? Dentist sells the assets of his practice to Buyer, AcquireCo. Dentist's Co, OldCo, will be hired by AcquireCo to provide consulting services. OldCo will pay Dentist a salary. Dentist is not an employee of AcquireCo Dentist performs no management services for AcquireCo Dentist has no ownership interest in AcquireCo All of OldCo's revenue comes from their consulting agreement with AcquireCo I don't see how this is an ASG, but tell me if I'm wrong. The only other issue I see is that Dentist could be considered a common law employee of AcquireCo.

FGC, I think written administrative procedures are the way to go.

FGC, in that case, the plan admin is responsible for interpreting the document. They should establish the procedures to implement the ACA and resolve the questions.

It all depends on how you wrote the QACA. I don't think there's an answer in the law or regs, it's in what the document says. If the document is unclear, clarify it.

My reaction is to answer the question as asked, so if no contribution is made, the code is not used.

This is a good question for your document provider.