ETA Consulting LLC

You contact the IRS and request a copy of the Taxpayer's transcript going as far back as possible. You, then, retain the Forms 5498 information from that transcript. Going forward, you'd want to keep this information. Good Luck!

The TH minimum is provided on Section 415 Compensation. That is, by definition, the entire year. Good Luck!

Typically, they'll go back two restatement cycles. When the PPA restatement deadline ends, you should expect to be asked for EGTRRA documents. Good Luck!

Yes, you make the contribution and then issue the refund to the appropriate individuals. When the document prescribes a match, there is not exception to making it (outside of one that is actually written into the terms of the plan). To do so would be to fail to make contributions pursuant to a definitely determinable formula as outlined in the plan. Good Luck!

Notice, that the 410(a)(4) has a reference to 410(a)(1). So, the semi-annual entry would apply when you have 21 years and one year of service as eligibility conditions. You could, conceivably, have a single entry date if you were to have less restrictive eligibility conditions (i.e. immediate eligibility). Even then, you'd have to ensure that anyone who is age 21 and works 1 year of service enters the plan by the 1st day of the plan year OR 6 months from meeting 21 & 1. To be safe, semi-annual with 1st day of year and 1st day of 7th month of year will give you a catch-all. Good Luck!

The "only" way conceivable would be to have the amendment affect only those employees who are not currently eligible for the plan; and therefore may have not received a safe harbor notice. Any other way would appear to change what was previously communicated in the safe harbor notice. Given the likelihood that this may not have the desired effect, it would probably be a good idea to wait until the start of a new year. Good Luck!

Except that documents, typically, aren't written to curtail deferrals at the 415 limit in the same manner as Employer Match and Profit Sharing. Good Luck!

Teach others so that they might obtain their designations. Truthfully, you learn more teaching than you ever did by studying for the test. When you have to explain it, you get a sense of how well you grasp the concepts. I took a former subordinate from 'no designation' through the QKA, QPA, and TGPC; more rewarding that any test I ever passed Congrats again!

I'm an ASPPA member, but I do not agree with 'all' their lobby efforts. I believe there are merits to the myRA when you consider the population for which it should have the 'most' impact. Good Luck!

There is no 'all things to all people'. So, there may be a few small business owners who choose not to do a 401(k) because of this option. That, alone, does not make it bad policy. To suggest that it does would be like suggesting SIMPLE IRAs are bad policy; for no reason other that a TPA losing a potential client. I can appreciate argument, but believe there are other things to consider. Good Luck!

I often explain to my clients that part of my function is to protect them from themselves :-) Good Luck!

That would depend on your perspective. I don't think this would impact what is currently in place. It appears to be a target to get a larger percentage of the lower class to save. The upper class (i.e. Warren Buffet) saves every dollar he makes; measure by that fact that his purchased aren't contingent on his next paycheck. If the middle class, saving his more consistent because. This would appear to be something to stimulate the lower-middle to the lower class (measured by wealth) to get in the habit of saving. Personally, I'm constantly telling many of my younger family and friends the importance of saving; even if at a rate of $20 per week. The problem, here, is that many vehicles in the private sector don't support such a low level. Who's going to save $1,040 per year when their 401(k) has an annual account maintenance fee of $100 per year? You're losing 10% already. The myIRA would appear to offer a mechanism to stimulate saving for those situations where the fees charged in doing so is too high of a percentage of the amount being saved. After you get to a relative low amount ($15,000), then you have a considerable amount to roll into the private market place without getting hammered with fees. I imagine that is the thought behind it. I would like to see (and hear) more before passing judgment. Good Luck!

Nor appreciates I know the feeling, but wouldn't change it for the world Congratulations on getting this done.

Oh, there's a surprise. ASPPA must 'give' those things away Congrats, well deserved!

Correct. A plan termination isn't considered a severance from employment for these purposes. Good Luck!

I'm with ESOP guy on this one. Sometime you propose a reasonable solution, but still have to wait for it to get accepted before implementing it. This is the nature of many filings that do not fall under the streamline filings. Good Luck!

Self correction is not available when you don't have one, I agree with everything else you stated; especially the "only" $5K price. Good Luck!

The best you have is the streamline processes. From there, each case is different; despite their similarities with other cases. Good Luck!

I believe he could put $51,000 as a profit sharing contribution, and a $5,500 catch-up on top of that. I was just about to post the same comment. $51,000 would get him to the 415 limit, so a deferral of $5,500 would maximize his catch-up. Keep in mind, however, than he CANNOT have a $56,500 profit sharing contribution. In order to get above the 415 limit through catch-up, it must be a deferral. Recently, I had to remind several people of this. Good Luck!

Only repayment of the loan amount outstanding at the time of default creates basis; as this would the amount for which he was already taxed. Good Luck!

Better yet, show me Compensation that you can benefit on that is not included in Section 415. When you ask me to prove to you that an apple is a fruit, my approach would be to ask you to prove to me that it is not. We established that the $80,000 payment: 1) was not for services rendered 2) Would not have been paid to the employee had he remained employed. Therefore, this amount was not included in Section 415 Compensation. You are saying he can benefit on this amount? Show me plan language that would suggest he can. Honestly, I'm under the impression that 'Includable Compensation' in a plan starts with Section 415 and then excludes amounts such as overtime and bonuses. Good Luck!

Wow. So, sarcasm aside, your position is that you may have plan compensation that includes amounts that are not included in Section 415 Comp? I'm really trying to get where you are right now. Good Luck!

No. Let's dissect this. We must not confuse post-severance pay with severance pay. Post-Severance pay represents amounts that would've been paid had the employee continued to work. This type of pay is based on timing with respect to severance from employment (e.g. later of 2-1/2 months after severance or the year end). This amount "may" or "may not" be included in 415 Comp; determined by the timing. Severance pay represents amounts that would not have been paid had the employee continued to work. These are amounts that are paid because of severance; not because of work or accrued vacation. This amount is "never" included in 415. Good Luck!

He should be eligible for a contribution in the year he is not a union employee. "Service" for a SEP is having worked DURING any "ONE" of the past five years; so it's not a Year of Service like qualified plans. Also, "SERVICE" is not defined as working under a certain classification (i.e. Union). Hence, he has already met the service requirement while continuing to be excluded each year due to union status. As soon as his status changes, he's now eligible because he has already performed the service. Good Luck!

There really is no "cannot rely on spousal exception". You must create a chart in order to effect the analysis. Co 1: Hubby @ 50%, Bro-n-law @ 50% Co 2: Wifey @ 50%; Friend @ 50% Attribution Rules: Minor Son owns 50% of Co 1 and 50% of Co2. There is no other owner who owns a percentage of both companies; so you only have 50% common ownership. That's not a controlled group. Attribution questions. Is there a 'right of first refusal' requiring Bro-n-law to sell his 50% to Hubby in the event he want to exit the business. If so, then Hubby (and therefore son) is 100% owner. The same question would be posed to Wifey and Friend. When you approach this type of analysis, it helps to break it down into simplified steps; not compile into a single equation. Good Luck!