rcline46

Why not make the auditor back his/her position up with a cite? If we have to do so, so should anyone challenging our position!

We know the IRS re-canted and allowed filing of multiple Forms 8955-SSA under one TCC so that administration firms do not have to obtain a TCC for each client. My memory (a very suspect item) says the IRS also specifically allow said firms to file the forms without specific approval or authorization by the plan sponsors. (if paper is filed, sponsor or plan administrator must file, but if filed electronically no signature and no pre-authorization) My usual problem, I cannot locate anything here (only 2 threads using 8955-ssa and fire), nothing in the instructions, and nothing in the IRS website. Does anyone else have such a memory, and more importantly for my attorney - a cite? Thank you all, and have a great weekend

In my experience, in these situations, the K-1 is purely passive income to the limited partners (like a SUB S situation). The general partner(s) get K-1s that might have some 'earned income'.

It does not matter how the in-service was paid, nor the source. It is all counted back.

Check your final 401(k) regulations amendment to the plan. My memory says if you have a Safe Harbor plan, you cannot impose any restrictions on matching contributions (such as 1,000 hours or end of year conditions). I would consider an EOY condition for a true-up to be banned. If your document specifies a per-period match, then normally there is no true up. If the match is an annual match (with no restrictions) then the true up is NOT an additional step, it is just part of the normal match calculation. I see no difference between a per-period match with special true up language and an annual match.

In my opinion, if the plan is not mentioned in the agreement of sale, YOU DO NOT HAVE THE PLAN. It remained with the original owners/co.

Read the new VCP (2013-12) instructions carefully. I think that they say amendments to allow early participation no longer require VCP filings, and adding employers back to the date they should have adopted (signed today) is the same (to me) as a retroactive amendment for early participation.

You should have 'reversed' the deferrals in the RK system as they will not enter into the ADP testing.

This is a post-tax voluntary contribution to the plan. Change the source in the rk system, make sure the plan permits voluntary contributions, test it with the ACP test.

Remembering that these are not 'qualified' plans, you should be able to execute a merger with custodian approval, providing the accounts are NOT individually titled accounts.

It is not the right of first refusal, but unrestricted options to buy the other one out. Again, be careful - cross purchase agreements do not usually rise to the level of options, they have to do with the death of the other party.

Are the accounts custodial accounts or annuity accounts? Remember, 403(b) plans do not have trustees to effect trustee to trustee transfers.

If you mean a Simple IRA, then yes they establish now. If you really mean a SIMPLE 401(k) then no. You cannot establish a new DC plan within 12 months after the last distribution (I think this is in 401(k)(6)).

AndyH is much more adept, and therefore cautious than I. Also, since I am NOT an enrolled actuary, you must treat my ramblings as hearsay evidence. I would suggest his hi-3 never goes away, so because his current pay is less than the old HI-3, use the old HI-3 comp. The concept of normalizing an old lump sum to a current benefit - well that can be a task. It could well be one of those things were 4 actuaries will get you seven results. Because I am not an EA, my limited concept says $100 benefit paid yesterday is still a $100 benefit today. So, in your example, I think he can get the $50 additional benefit. I think AndyH disagrees, but you will have to pay him to calculate his normalized benefit. With the lower rates today, I would think he has a SMALLER distributed benefit.

You also should make sure that permitted disparity is not being used in both plans. Since your plan is cross tested, you may be using permitted disparity in the testing, and if the DB plan is integrated, that is a no-no.

Only HCEs in the ACP test for voluntary contributions. Instant fail.

When cross testing you most certainly can impute disparity, you just cannot impute on the SHNEC. For simplicitiy's sake, a 3% SHNEC plus a 2% gateway, you can impute disparity on the 2% gateway, just not on the 3%SHNEC.

Go back to that someone and have them provide a cite for their statement. Since they are the 'expert' they should have it. If they cannot provide it, then politely tell them not to opine on hearsay evidence. (so speaketh this old curmudgeon)

My turn to be persnickity - there ain't no such thing as a 401(k) plan, and we all know it. There is a profit sharing plan with a cash or deferred arrangement attached to it under IRC 401(k). So, for tjt169, if you are asking if you can add a mandatory contribution feature to a plan that has a 401(k), then yes. However, you cannot make the ability to do 401(k) (pre-tax or ROTH) dependent on making mandatory contributions (which are after tax). You can make receipt of the profit sharing component of the the plan dependent on mandatory contributions. For non-union plans, mandatory contributions have pretty much disappeared.

Set up plan excluding HCEs from SH match. Allow discretionary match. Then do discretionary match to HCEs, not more that 4%. This should pass testing. Make sure discretionary is offset by any SH match (which is more valuable). Why won't this work?

If using RELIUS, the 'glitch' is in your employer payroll set up - it says your default schedule is ANNUAL (right side of form). Don't know about other systems.

Check you document for definiton of a month of service. Many documents grant a full month for any time worked in that month. If that is what your document reads, then the employee did complete 3 consecutive months of service.

Not under the code section they use for ownership. That is why the plan is covered by the PBGC

Execute an option to buy for the children for at least 10% of the stock. Then you escape PBGC coverage.

Did the distribution end up on the Schedule SE? If not, then cannot use as it was not 'earned income'.