Bill Presson

Here's the actual language. It just substitutes the age and specifically references owners. SEC. 114. Increase in age for required beginning date for mandatory distributions. (a) In general.—Section 401(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking “age 70½” and inserting “age 72”. (b) Spouse beneficiaries; special rule for owners.—Subparagraphs (B)(iv)(I) and (C)(ii)(I) of section 401(a)(9) of such Code are each amended by striking “age 70½” and inserting “age 72”. (c) Conforming amendments.—The last sentence of section 408(b) of such Code is amended by striking “age 70½” and inserting “age 72”. (d) Effective date.—The amendments made by this section shall apply to distributions required to be made after December 31, 2019, with respect to individuals who attain age 70½ after such date.

That hasn't changed.

It's only for the employer contribution part of any plan. Any participant deferral plan still has to be adopted in advance of the first payroll deduction.

And receive the safe harbor matching because there can't be any hours requirement once the eligibility is met. I know that was implied.

I would recommend this.

Also, is there a way to get more than 1 month prescription at a time? Maybe 3 or 6 months, thus reducing the number of times he might have to submit?

It's an audit per year.

credit doesn't apply if there was a plan in place during the previous three years.

When I first started my TPA in 1986, we used to do it via a sign in sheet, like attendance at a meeting. Did that for a couple of years until I had a client go through an IRS audit. Found out it was complete overkill and haven't done it since.

No. If you are paid for preparing a return, you have to have a PTIN.

Dave, That appears to have worked. Thanks!

This morning when looking at my "unread" message list like I do almost every day, it was automatically showing the expanded view (title and first several lines). I clicked the condensed view to change back, but nothing happened. Not the worst thing in the world, but not sure why it changed and can't be corrected. Thanks. WCP

Nope. You're right. Dang. Hate when I make a mistake. Almost got through the whole year, this time. ?

Can't do the first one either or at least not the full amount.

No. From the IRS: A participant can make catch-up contributions for a year up to the lesser of the following amounts: The catch-up contribution dollar limit, or The excess of the participant's compensation over the elective deferral contributions that are not catch-up contributions.

I think we've all stated that they have to sign the deferral election by 12/31 of the year in which they are deferring because that's the date the income is deemed to be "earned." I don't think this changes that.

You might want to talk to someone else. You would be shocked how many divorce lawyers don't know what they are doing when it comes to QDROs and ERISA law.

Chip, I think Larry covered most of the concerns, but the doctor not being a statutory employee was the main one that I had.

See here: https://benefitslink.com/cgi-bin/qa.cgi?n=49&db=qa_who_is_employer

Once the money goes in the SEP accounts, they belong to the participant and what they do with the money has nothing to do with whether they are eligible to get a contribution this year. Just apply the eligibility requirements and make the contributions.

Thanks and Congratulations!!

I used Relius for almost 20 years and don't recall this being an option. If it was, I likely wouldn't have used it anyway.

Strictly speaking, yes. Whether the client follows your recommendation or not is another thing.

If you use this page: 5500 Form Selector it will tell you.

I'm guessing it is a plan with an individual brokerage account for each participant.