Bill Presson

Isn't this plan design one of the levels of Hell described by Dante?

Unfortunately pricing errors do happen. Can you not load the new price in the system and that will correct the amounts?

If it's held in a 401(k) account, then the tax implications are that you get to eat the loss and not deduct it. Regarding whether to keep it or sell it, I seriously doubt that anyone on this forum will make a suggestion to you.

I have this issue if I log in at work, then take my laptop home and log in from home. If i just log in at work and then don't log in at home, it will keep the cookies till the next day. Just my experience.

There's a possibility a controlled group can be avoided in the right circumstances: Question: Controlled group determination and attribution between spouses - A husband owns 100% of one company (sole proprietorship), and his wife owns 100% of another company (another sole proprietorship). Are these 2 companies in a controlled group? Answer: Maybe. Generally, the spouse's ownership attributes to the other spouse, resulting in the two companies being "trades or businesses under common control", which means they are treated as a single company for plan purposes. However, ownership does not attribute from one spouse to the other if: 1. The spouse does not own directly any interest in the company; 2. The spouse is not a director or employee, and does not participate in the company's management; 3. Not more than 50 percent of the company's gross income is from royalties, rents, dividends, interest, or annuities; and 4. The interest in the company is not subject to conditions which substantially restrict or limit the spouse's right to dispose of such stock and which run in favor of the individual or his children who have not attained the age of 21 years. Regardless of the above, if the couple has a minor (under age 21) child together, the ownership of each spouse attributes to the child (but not to each other) making the child the 100% owner of each company. And, if they are in a community property state, the state law may result in actual, rather than attributed ownership. Either would result in being under common control, for plan purposes. The same rules apply to corporations, under IRC 1563(e)(5). §1.414©-2 © Brother-sister group of trades or businesses under common control (1) In general. —The term “brother-sister group of trades or businesses under common control” means two or more organizations conducting trades or businesses if (i) the same five or fewer persons who are individuals, estates, or trusts own (directly and with the application of §1.414©-4) a controlling interest in each organization, and (ii) taking into account the ownership of each such person only to the extent such ownership is identical with respect to each such organization, such persons are in effective control of each organization. The five or fewer persons whose ownership is considered for purposes of the controlling interest requirement for each organization must be the same persons whose ownership is considered for purposes of the effective control requirement. §1.414©-4. Rules for determining ownership (a) In general. - In determining the ownership of an interest in an organization for purposes of §1.414©-2 and §1.414©-3, the constructive ownership rules of paragraph (b) of this section shall apply, subject to the operating rules contained in paragraph ©. For purposes of this section the term “interest” means: in the case of a corporation, stock; in the case of a trust or estate, an actuarial interest; in the case of a partnership, an interest in the profits or capital; and in the case of a sole proprietorship, the proprietorship. (b) Constructive ownership (5) Spouse (i) General rule. - Except as provided in paragraph (b)(5)(ii) of this section, an individual shall be considered to own an interest owned, directly or indirectly, by or for his or her spouse, other than a spouse who is legally separated from the individual under a decree of divorce, whether interlocutory or final, or a decree of separate maintenance. (ii) Exception. - An individual shall not be considered to own an interest in an organization owned, directly or indirectly, by or for his or her spouse on any day of a taxable year of such organization, provided that each of the following conditions are satisfied with respect to such taxable year: (A) Such individual does not, at any time during such taxable year, own directly any interest in such organization; (B) Such individual is not a member of the board of directors, a fiduciary, or an employee of such organization and does not participate in the management of such organization at any time during such taxable year; © Not more than 50 percent of such organization's gross income for such taxable year was derived from royalties, rents, dividends, interest, and annuities; and (D) Such interest in such organization is not, at any time during such taxable year, subject to conditions which substantially restrict or limit the spouse's right to dispose of such interest and which run in favor of the individual or the individual's children who have not attained the age of 21 years. The principles of §1.414©-3(d)(6)(i) shall apply in determining whether a condition is a condition described in the preceding sentence. (iii) Definitions. - For purposes of paragraph (b)(5)(ii)© of this section, the gross income of an organization shall be determined under section 61 and the regulations thereunder. The terms “interest”, “royalties”, “rents”, “dividends”, and “annuities” shall have the same meaning such terms are given for purposes of section 1244© and §1.1244©-1(e)(1). (6) Children, grandchildren, parents, and grandparents... 1563(e) Constructive Ownership. - 1563(e)(5) Spouse. - An individual shall be considered as owning stock in a corporation owned, directly or indirectly, by or for his spouse (other than a spouse who is legally separated from the individual under a decree of divorce whether interlocutory or final, or a decree of separate maintenance), except in the case of a corporation with respect to which each of the following conditions is satisfied for its taxable year - 1563(e)(5)(A) The individual does not, at any time during such taxable year, own directly any stock in such corporation; 1563(e)(5)(B) The individual is not a director or employee and does not participate in the management of such corporation at any time during such taxable year; 1563(e)(5)© Not more than 50 percent of such corporation's gross income for such taxable year was derived from royalties, rents, dividends, interest, and annuities; and 1563(e)(5)(D) Such stock in such corporation is not, at any time during such taxable year, subject to conditions which substantially restrict or limit the spouse's right to dispose of such stock and which run in favor of the individual or his children who have not attained the age of 21 years. 1563(e)(6) Children, grandchildren, parents, and grandparents. - 1563(e)(6)(A) Minor children. - An individual shall be considered as owning stock owned, directly or indirectly, by or for his children who have not attained the age of 21 years, and, if the individual has not attained the age of 21 years, the stock owned, directly or indirectly, by or for his parents. 1563(e)(6)(B) Adult children and grandchildren. - An individual who owns (within the meaning of subsection (d)(2), but without regard to this subparagraph) more than 50 percent of the total combined voting power of all classes of stock entitled to vote or more than 50 percent of the total value of shares of all classes of stock in a corporation shall be considered as owning the stock in such corporation owned, directly or indirectly, by or for his parents, grandparents, grandchildren, and children who have attained the age of 21 years. 1563(e)(6)© Adopted child. - For purposes of this section, a legally adopted child of an individual shall be treated as a child of such individual by blood.

Kim, I'll gladly give you yet another pay cut to come work for me!

Our audit division started them last year as well.

You probably saw it in the '60's and since you've only recently been awakened, I know it can be very disconcerting to find out about all that has changed!

The 1099 would need to be corrected. He could file an amended return, but would probably need to make a decision on the cost of amending v. lower tax on $180.

Q1 At this point, I wouldn't report it at all. Since it wasn't paid by the plan, I don't think it should be on Schedule C.

Yes, it is.

You file a 12/31/07 5500 just as you normally would. There are questions about the termination and you'll need to answer those. Then, if all the assets are distributed before 12/31/08, you can file a final 5500. Your audit requirement will depend on the number of participants at 01/01/08.

http://www.irs.gov/retirement/participant/...=151786,00.html

In my opinion, the check date is the date the check is written. I would side with the participant. But that's just me. They could always call the IRS and see what they think.

Relius is still talking about it, but the biggest issue is figuring out a way to tie the information to payroll data. And we will always have to use SSN's for distribution tax reporting, so even if an employer is reluctant, they still have to give it to us.

I wonder how many NHCE's actually got bonuses and if it would really make difference.

The EGTRRA amendment does say that matching contributions shall be taken into account for purposes of satisfying the minimum contribution requirements. so, how does the intergated profit sharing contribution of 3.08% of comp. get allocated? Do I allocated as pro rata on comp plus excess or is it allocated as a top heavy plan without match is allocated? Am I making this harder that it is? It's been a long year so far. I would allocate it without taking into account the match or any top heavy requirements. Then test it to see if it satisfies top heavy (while counting the match). But you can't use the match to satisfy any of the permitted disparity requirements.

We've had other issues from time to time, but not these. Feel free to email me if you want more information. bill.presson@wakm.com

Try this: http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/Newsroom/tr92-01.html

Don't be so wishy-washy! If you're referring to the large company in Boston, I'll let it go. But for other recordkeepers, we just try to do our job the best we can. The original post was about a clerk of the court that said the judge couldn't sign the DRO until the divorce was final. Feel free to include them in your "ass" categorie as well.

Wish I had read this thread first thing this morning! These are the kind of questions where I actually know the answers. Curses, bird, curses!!

This feels so much like a trap question. Like, I'll give my answer and then everyone will start to laugh because I missed the subtle, yet obivous clue! In any case, I think the accountant is full of....himself. I think surgery centers are one of the targets of the ASG rules. If they didn't apply there, exactly where would they apply? I would ask him to show me where the regs give the exemption and let him spend his time on it.

Here is some typical language: ALLOCATION OF EARNINGS AND LOSSES: As of each Valuation Date, accounts which have not been distributed since the prior Valuation Date will have the net income or loss of the Trust Fund earned since the prior Valuation Date allocated thereto as hereinafter set forth in this Section. Net income or loss is the net of any interest, dividends, unrealized appreciation and depreciation, capital gains and losses, and investment expenses of the Trust Fund determined on each Valuation Date.

I agree with you. He should have written the check on January 2, 2008.

And would the owner/beneficiary of the policy still be the PS Plan? Not after the participant buys the policy. It would then be just like any other personal insurance policy. Here is the PTE for the sale: DOL PTE 92-6 (amended 2002)