Bill Presson

Thirded!

Agree - not a severance of employment. 

Doesn't sound like a severance of employment to me.....

After tax contributions have to be deposited by January 30, 2026 to be counted for 2025 calendar year 415 limit. 

OH, OH, OH!!!  NY 3329 (February of 2026!) is a new bill which would extend the state (New Jersey) income tax exclusion to employees of non-profits with 403(b) deferrals!  The Bill is in Committee in New Jersey.
"Specifically, it excludes elective contributions made by these employees to their retirement plans from New Jersey's gross income tax. This includes contributions to plans authorized under section 401(k) of the federal Internal Revenue Code for private sector workers, and now extends similar tax deferrals to employees of governments and non-profits who contribute to elective deferred compensation systems allowed under federal law, such as those established under section 403(b) for charitable, educational, and religious organizations," 
 

It's a game accountants like to have their clients play to minimize their FICA and Medicare payroll taxes, which often screws them out of the ability to make maximum retirement contributions (not to mention limiting their ultimate Social Security benefit if below the SSWB).
If W2 is already over the SSWB then it's only 2.9% Medicare taxes they are saving, which is not smart when the retirement contribution percentages missed out on are typically much higher.
S-corp plan comp is W2, K1 is not included, that is not an item open to plan administrator interpretation and if they insist on doing so I would likely resign from that engagement.
 

Assuming your post is accurate, the w-2 comp from the s corp is the only earned income for the docs and the person saying otherwise is wrong and needs to start over in pension school. 

Assuming your post is accurate, the w-2 comp from the s corp is the only earned income for the docs and the person saying otherwise is wrong and needs to start over in pension school. 

For the calculation, no. For understanding the calculation and not screwing it up that one year the w-2 IS lower? Yes. 

Assuming your post is accurate, the w-2 comp from the s corp is the only earned income for the docs and the person saying otherwise is wrong and needs to start over in pension school. 

Assuming your post is accurate, the w-2 comp from the s corp is the only earned income for the docs and the person saying otherwise is wrong and needs to start over in pension school. 

Assuming your post is accurate, the w-2 comp from the s corp is the only earned income for the docs and the person saying otherwise is wrong and needs to start over in pension school. 

Assuming your post is accurate, the w-2 comp from the s corp is the only earned income for the docs and the person saying otherwise is wrong and needs to start over in pension school. 

Assuming your post is accurate, the w-2 comp from the s corp is the only earned income for the docs and the person saying otherwise is wrong and needs to start over in pension school. 

I continue to be drawn to the divorce proceeding, including the domestic relations order (NOT the qualification of the order by the plan), in which B does not seem to have participated in the identification, valuation, or terms of division of the plan interest in the context of the larger division of property between A and B in the divorce proceeding. That is a state court matter in which there may have been ignorance, inattention, unfairness, deception, omission, or other skulduggery, or not. There is nothing* about federal QDRO rules that relates to what B “should” or could get from the plan in consequence of divorce. In fact, the plan is generally not supposed to have any concern for what happened in the state court and may/should look only at whether the proposed QDRO appears to be an actual domestic relations order.
The alarm about A’s position and behavior relating to the plan (other than refusal to provide (1) benefit information necessary for fairly adjudicating or settling rights in the state court divorce proceeding, and (2) information about plan procedures) seems misguided, despite the bad optics relating to A. The bad things that may have happened — or things that should have happened and did not — probably happened (or not) in the state court.
Which brings me back to, “What does B think B should be getting from the plan by way of benefits that B is not getting under the terms of the QDRO?” The answer probably relates to the terms of the domestic relation order — the product of the state court — not the qualification of the domestic relations order by the plan. 
 
*Well, almost nothing.

It is a “safe harbor” allocation meaning there is no a4 testing. 
 
The allocation steps will be in the document. 

Got it - thx again

Link updated and happy to have it still. 
 
I liked the acknowledgment of Ms Carol’s contributions on the page. Well done Bakers!

I'll never understand why M&A attorneys aren't sued for ignoring retirement plan issues prior to the transaction date.

Tell him to roll money back in so it can be distributed. If he doesn’t, issue the 1099s showing some of the money can’t be rolled over and cause him some heartache. 

Tell him to roll money back in so it can be distributed. If he doesn’t, issue the 1099s showing some of the money can’t be rolled over and cause him some heartache. 

Tell him to roll money back in so it can be distributed. If he doesn’t, issue the 1099s showing some of the money can’t be rolled over and cause him some heartache. 

Did you pair the proper Relius account number to that source?  Like, maybe your account 201 is accidentally the match source.

Tell him to roll money back in so it can be distributed. If he doesn’t, issue the 1099s showing some of the money can’t be rolled over and cause him some heartache. 

Larry Starr AND Jim Norman in the same current thread?
It's a post-Festivus miracle!