Earl

I thought the guy gets two 2004 1099s. One code P for taxable in prior year and one code 8 for taxable in current year.

A guy dies He is not married He has a Trust as the beneficiary Can the full value of the account be rolled to the Trust with no withholding (since, as there is no spouse, the benefit cannot be rolled over)? What if he is married and has a Trust as a beneficiary? Since it could be rolled over are taxes required to be withheld? Thanks

can't figure how to add more than one file. 2003_Total_Allocation_Generic.pdf

best try 2003_Partner_Income_Generic.pdf

Well, my information is on the sheet. The issues are that the plan is cross tested, not integrated and its a 3% NESH, not match. I put questions and comments at the bottom. I have the rates that will pass, but don't know how to develop the comp numbers. What to do with the EE cost for the EE that became a Ptr. I will put my best try on a second reply. I think they are going to chrage the EE cost for the pre-PTR comp to the Partnership and then have the Ptr make it up next year. Which I don't really get but I guess anything can be negotiated. I thought this was an interesting scenario but virtually unsolvable (for me.) I will recommend partner changes at year end for the future. preston2.xls

that's for this weekend...

awesome. Now I get to check what I came up with pushing a lumbering valuation program around through various permutations and plugging various results into a "master valuation". The changed the ownership on 11/1. Don't you think they could have waited 2 months?

Does anyone have a spreadsheet that will allocate the same (except cross tested - not integrated) as above but contains a rank & file employee that became a Partner mid-year (W-2 and K-1). Would it accomodate different rates of ownership and profit split? thanks...

If the ERs # is used don't you have to pay electronically (if ER's # is required to pay electronically)? Do you set up a plan account for that process? Stale numbers, plan name changes, MP Plans going away... This has been a headache for me for a while.

so you could stay exempt until the amount attributed to salary deferrals reaches $100k. Or the guy reaches 59 1/2 and rolls them too, I guess...

Thanks - So it is she can't elect to delay the distribution to 2005 and then take a distribution (which she rolls). A distribution is a distribution and the first amount distributed applies to the minimum. Thanks again.

Participant terminates 12/31/03 and turns 70 1/2 in September 2004. First distribution must be by 04/01/05. Can she rollover the full amount if she says that she wants to defer first distrib until 2005. My reaction is no, the plan must make the distribution. Any contrary advice? Thank you.

Thank you for your reply. My issue is with the Participant Statement being used for this disclosure. The decision to invest was made way before. The Participant Statement is only a report on the decisions. There is only one class available to the Participants so there is no decision process involved there. I guess my question boils down to this: Would regulators look at Participant Statement fund names as a disclosure item (wrt share class offered) when the statements are produced by an administration company that the fund company holds a minority interest in? I am just trying to keep the names manageable for the statement. The fund company has "California" in the family name so I am in trouble from the start.

after 1/1/04 it is ok to do that?

I, a TPA, am in partnership with a mutual fund company. I am producing participant statements. The fund company president wants the fund names on the participant statements to show the share class (there are 2 classes). He feels that to not do so would invite possible regulator inquiry regarding failure to disclose. I think that the participant statements would not be looked at in that light and that the enrollment/education material is the germaine material to review for proper disclosure. Would Participant statements be looked at as a Fund company disclosure item in this way? Thanks for any lead or insight...

Maybe (but doesn't ref 75, which i now see you are spec. ref): A transition rule (sometimes referred to as the "TEFRA 242(b) election") permits the indefinite postponement of the start of benefits beyond age 70-1/2 where the method of distribution would not have disqualified the plan under the pre-'84 rules. Under the pre-'84 rules, an owner-employee had to begin receiving distributions no later than the last day of the taxable year in which he reached age 70-1/2, while a common law employee could delay the start of distributions until retirement, if the employee retired after reaching age 70-1/2.

you got it backwards.... let them show you where it says that

Thanks very much.

What is the minimum Sched C necessary to defer $14,000. Is it $14,000 or is it grossed up by the SE ded, $15,065... You would then still owe income tax on the amount paid as SE tax, $1,065? Thanks

Isn't there a reg that says even if it is not a control group the 80% threshold is reduced to 50% for the application of the 415 limit? I remember it and looked for 5 mins but can't find it...

Actually there are separate formulas on the match for regular deferrals and catch up deferrals. Both are matched $ for $ up to $1,000 (for each type of deferral).

So if the people getting match on catch-ups passes 70% ratio percentage test I would just run acp as normal? (I should have started a new thread with my question/scenario...) Thank you.

although a plan subject to min funding requires a cash contribution, I think that if you contribute property and: if it has appreciated - you recognize the gain as if it was sold, and if it has depreciated - you don't get to recognize the loss. But i didn't look that up, it is just from memory.

Since we are talking about match formulas, I just took over a case where the match formula is 100% up to $1,000 for all employees and for employees who are catch up eligible (but not necessarily making catch up contributions) there is an additional 100% up to an additional $1,000. (Guy age 60 defers $2,000, he gets $2,000 match; Guy age 40 defers $2,000, he gets $1,000). Would the additional match be a benefit structure tested for coverage? Would a guy age 50+ deferring $0 - $1,000 be deemed benefitting? If it passes coverage would a normal ACP test then apply? I hate to just say "You can't do that" without some clue why.... Thanks

no - Have not heard a reason to yet.