D Lewis

How about a special amendment that brings in the wife and one or more NHCEs at the same time? Not sure how many NHCEs you need in this case without the demographics, but if they want the wife in so bad, it's the price to be paid to get what one wants.

I agree that the participant can take the in service and roll it over without a RMD provided the document doesn't say otherwise, and the particicpant is a NHCE. I know it's not the questions being asked, but doesn't that mean the there will be RMDs from the IRA since there is no provision to postpone RMDs in an IRA like there is in a QP? Not sure that was a result the participant was looking for.

Plus as mentioned before, 3E used to be "Prototype plan", and now it's used for "A one-participant plan" It's not just that 3D and 3E are now combined into 3D - 3E has a new meaning.

Thank you both for your replies. If the year is truly a calendar year, then since the circular clearly states that one must have 2 ethics CPE for each year, and any partial year counts as a full year, then I should have had 2 ethics CPE in 2009 since I was enrolled in September of 2009, and then 2 ethics CPE in 2010. I'm beginning to think that the ethics CPE requirement is disconnected with the renewal cycles. So it doesn't mean that I needed 4 by 6/30/2010 when I renew, but that I needed 2 in 2009 (which is too late), and 2 in 2010 through December. I'm going to make sure I have 20 total CPE by 6/30 as the fax I received stated. The memo did not mention how many ethics I needed, so I'll see if I can get my ethics total to 2 CPE by 6/30. I'll take some more CPEs in 2010 sometime and make sure some of that is ethics so that I have 4 total for 2010 (to make up for not having any in 2009), and not worry about it. yeah, that sounds like a plan! (who knows)

I am one of the lucky ones whose Social Security Number ends in 0, 1, 2, or 3. So I must renew my ERPA enrollment by 6/30/2010. I was enrolled 9/3/2009 and it expires 9/30/2010. I have read the Circular 230 regarding CPE credits for those enrolled during an enrollment cycle and am confused. For a regular 3 year cycle it is clear that one must have 72 CPE credit, and one must have at least 16 (including at least 2 ethics) each year. When one was enrolled during a an enrollment cycle Circular 230 states (page 9 - section 10.6 (e)(2)(iii)): I wasn't exactly sure what an enrollment year was for me. For part A, "In general", I figured that I had 10 months from 9/2009 to 6/2010 so that was 20 CPE that I needed. What I could not figure out at all was how many ethics CPE I needed. If the enrollment year was a calendar year (as defined in section 10.6 (e)(1)(i)), and any part of a year was considered a whole year, then I would need 4 ethics CPE. This made no sense to me as I have been enrolled less than one year. After a couple of attempts I got through to someone at the IRS, and I was not able to clear things up - it only made it worse as I don't think the person I talked to knows what she was talking about. First of all she said that first paragraph above ("(A) In general . . .") required that someone enrolled during an enrollment cycle had to have 2 CPE IN each month. So even though I was enrolled on 9/3/2009 and received my certificate and card sometime later that month, I had to have 2 CPE in 9/09, and then 2 in Oct 09, 2 in Nov 09, etc. I expressed that this didn't make any sense at all, but she was animate and said we would agree to disagree. That if I was audited, I could be sanctioned if I did not have 2 CPE in each month rather than 20 in the period 9/09 to 6/10. When I asked what I was supposed to about it now as there is no way to go back and get 2 CPE in each month, she said "can't you get them now before you renew?" Which of completely contradicts what she previously said - when I pointed that out, she said that they would accept the renewal, but again if I was audited, I could be sanctioned. I pointed out that the regular 3 year cycle does not require anything similar, that one just had to have 16 per year and 72 total, she referred me back to how the circular is written. She is clearly wrong about this, but it went no where. When it came to ethics CPE, she first told me I had to have 4 ethics CPE. I’ll spare trying to describe all of this part of the conversation as it was completely bizarre. I explained that I had 1.5 ethics CPE from a recent conference and didn’t know where I could get .5 more to get to 2 total, let alone 2.5 more to get to 4, by 6/30. I asked her if she could define what my “enrollment year” was (calendar or other wise) so I could figure out how many years were in my cycle and then determine how many ethics CPEs I needed. She said some things, but never was able to answer the question - I don’t think she understands it herself. She said “what would I like, would I like it to be 1.5?” I said “sure” and she said “OK”. After picking my jaw off the floor I still don’t know what that means or what I’m supposed to do. Then she said, “do you want the extension or not?” I didn’t know what she was talking about. She then said something like “well we knew for this first renewal cycle people would have difficulty getting the CPE by 6/30, so we’ve extended until 9/30." I felt like screaming “why didn’t you say this in the beginning?” That also contradicts her contention that we must have 2 CPE in each month. She then said she wanted to fax me an internal memo. The fax is a Policy and Procedures Memorandum dated 3/8/10 from the Chief of the Case Development & Licensure Branch. It states in part: But I’m lost in figuring this out. She told me on the phone that we had an extension to apply for renewal and get the CPEs, but the memo seems to say that we have an extension to apply for renewal, but he CPEs must be completed by 6/30. It appears that we have to certify what we have done and retain the records to prove it only if asked. Nothing needs to be submitted with the application to support that we have competed the requirements. I’m not even sure if I’m posting this to ask a question or just to make others aware of the issue. If any one has anything that can enlighten the situation I would sure appreciate it.

I don't have the practice test, but either you don't have the correct number, or you have a different version. Possibly they fixed the question. Look at the orginal post, yours looks like a similar question, but the facts and numbers are different, and the answers are different. For instance in the original post "B" was "II only" and yours "B" is "III only".

I have been using 2T with 2F and 2G when appropriate. Our software (Ft William) has not had a problem with it. I would be curious to know why Relius thinks it is an error. Seems like it should be fine and correct to me.

Our software (Ft. William) does not allow and will not save an entry if it has an "&" in it.

The OP said that they added SH in 2009 and then rescinded it. The OP said that prior to 2009, the plan was tested on a prior year basis. I think that means it was changed to current year 1/1/2009, and they must wait 5 years to change back to prior year.

Does the Plan document allow for forfeitures to be used to pay fees? If so, that may be an option. Otherwise, have the Safe Harbor contributions been made yet? Does the Plan document allow for forfeitures to be allocated to any source? If the Safe Harbor has not been completed yet, and the document allows it, use the forfeitures to reduce the Safe Harbor contribution.

Well my story is long, but I'll try to be brief. Many many years ago I had a Sunoco Visa Card - I didn't know it at the time but it was underwritten by BofA. They contacted me about purchases in Canada as being unusual, but didn't notice 6 straight days of max cash advances in California (I live in NJ). The story I was told, is that somebody called in with my info and convinced Sunoco/BofA that they were me - had new cards issued (that I never got of course) and changed the security info. Then whomever had my personal info and I had many years of bank accounts, credit cards and cell phone accounts being opened with my SSN. I Filed multiple police reports. None of it cost me any $, but it was a pain in the . . . . to keep fixing! The locks I would put on my credit reports would expire. Finally, the credit report companies made available a permanent lock, so after I did that, it has stopped happening. But now it's a pain if I legitimately want to establish a new account or credit card or take a loan since when the store or whomever checks my credit, it comes back blocked. I swore that I would never use BofA because of this, but then my bank was sold to BofA - so now my checking and savings are with them. It's been many years now since that, and I never bothered to change banks (too lazy) - but I haven't had any further trouble either. Not really sure that it's just BofA though.

I don't know if there is an official answer, but I can't see why they can't be done together. I know we did one that way last year. Either way, the supplemental safe harbor notice must be given.

What does the document say in it's definition of compensation? If it says compensation prior to entry date is excluded, then the SH contribution is based on the compensation earned after the entry date (11/1 in your example). If it says compensation prior to entry date is included, then the SH contribution is based on the full year's compensation.

Of course it's better to have distributions after the end of the year for this situation as K2retire said, but if the document does have immediate cash outs for a balance forward plan, I don't see why the amount of the distribution can't be the vested amount of the latest valuation, plus any current period deferrals and Safe Harbor contributions. No current period gains or losses. It requires a little extra work to find out from the employer the compensation to calculate the Safe Harbor, and to find out the deferral amount, but it's not that hard. And with a balance forward plan, it doesn't even matter if the employer has deposited the Safe Harbor yet. Of course one has to look to the document, but I think most are silent on this issue. I would be interested to hear if others think this is not allowed, as depending on the situation, we have done this. Of course profit sharing is a different story, and depends on the plan design. Most of ours have 1,000 hours - last day for PS, so unless there is a testing problem, the terminated participant is not getting that piece. If they do get a PS, then that part would require a 2nd distribution (unless it is a fixed required pro rata ps).

I agree with you - the answer key is wrong IMO Total Excess Contributions are 9,000 HCE 1 = 4,200 HCE 2 = 4,000 HCE 3 = 800 Refunds: HCE 1 = 7,000 HCE 2 = 2,000 "B", "II Only" is the correct answer.

What about a plan that terminated in 2009 and the assets were distributed 12/7/2009? We didn't worry about filing before 12/31/2009 to avoid having to file electronically because it's an EZ. We don't want to file a SF - can we file now using the 2008 EZ since the short plan year ended 12/7/2009? Or must we wait until this summer to file a 2009 EZ? Thanks

You would also indicate the change with the Characteristic codes in line 8a. Money Purchase plan would have been reported as 2C, a 401(k) profit sharing plan would use 2E, 2J, possibly 2A and others. I'm not sure if for 2009 you would report both - I would have to look into that

I am also interested in this question as I'm part of the "we" in "are we headed in the right direction". Does anybody have any thoughts on this? Thanks

I don't know much about laws, but if this participant works for a law firm, should not it be explored what remedies there are to force the landlord to make the repairs? Aren't they required to do so if it is a health issue? Can't a renter also legitimately break the lease under such circumstance? Short of going with any of that, if this participant used her regular income and savings to make the repairs, she would need a hardship to prevent eviction since she would not have the money to pay the rent. Might have to get a loan outside of the plan first since the amount to make repairs is most likely more than curent income. Maybe someone else can comment if that is a viable approach.