R. Butler

How about the following statement that appears near the signature on Form 5500-EZ: "Under penalties of perjury and other penalties set forth in the instructions, I declare that I have examined this return, including accompanying schedules, statements and attachments, as well as the elctronic version of this return if it is being filed electronically, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, it is true, correct, and complete." I'm with you. The chances of any plan being audited are remote, but that doesn't change the answer.

Thanks. That is the route we will take. I hadn't seen one like that before & intially I was a little confused, but as I pondered it a little its fairly obvious thats the best way to handle it.

Thats funny; I'll remember for future use.

The plan's QDRO procedures are pretty specific. I'm hesitant to advise the plan sponsor to reject the DRO on grounds not mentioned in the plan's procedures. The more I consider the issue, I'm inclined to advise the sponsor that the clause can be ignored & that the spouse can be granted a rollover option if she chooses. First, I don't see really see any adverse consequences to that. Second, as you mention, I'm not sure a QDRO can restrict the alternate payees ability to rollover the distribution. Thoughts?

Reviewing a DRO where the terms require that the check be made payable to the Alternate payee spouse & actually seems to prevent the possibililty of a rollover. 2 issues: 1. Although it seems odd that a DRO provision would preclude a rollover; the provision doesn't require that the Plan provide form of benefit not otherwise available, so in & of itself that particular clause doesn't prevent the DRO from being a QDRO. Any thoughts? 2. Assuming a QDRO, if the alternate payee spouse wants to rollover, I'm assuming that she can't. It seems to me that clause in the QDRO has to be followed. Thoughts? Thanks in advance.

#13 -- "The narrative is simple - your basic wild Sin City weekend, fortified with enough hard and exotic drugs to kill an entire platoon of marines - but Thompson uses it as eulogy for the sixties, the last violent, pained gasp of a decade defined by violence and pain. Halfway through the film, Thompson looks out the window of his Mint Hotel suite at the unnatural glow of Las Vegas, circa 1971, and bemoans what America had lost in the last ten years: 'With the right kind of eyes, you can almost see the high-water mark - the place where the wave broke and rolled back.'"

There are several discussions on this. Below are link for recent ones. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=29954 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?s...pic=29442&st=15

I didn't see the movie, but I can get it based on that.

Are you asking whether a safe harbor plan using the SHNEC gets a top-heavy pass? If so, then it depends on who you ask: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=11000&hl= The discussion on the specific question start about 5 or 6 replies down with himt4. I'm pretty sure if you searched you'd find other posts with the same analysis & the same people taking the same positions.

I'll go with your answer. Psalm 23 is my favorite

You've only given limited facts, but it doesn't sound like there were any anti-cutback issues. It sounds like Co. A's plan was just giving predecessor service credit Co. B's employees. Is that correct? If so I wouldn't be overly concerned. You probably should though contact your plan's counsel & let them review the issue thoroughly.

Unless I am missing what you are describing is different from my situation. There are 2 distinct businesses. Sam operates one as a sole proprieter & one as an LLC. I am assuming that you are describing one business, an LLC taxed as a sole proprieter.

Does anyone have any recommendations on seminars for a beginner looking to learn the basics? Thanks in advance for any guidance.

I'm pretty sure that is not correct. If he has to file at all he files the 5500 because the common control group. I'm also pretty sure does have to file just was hoping that maybe I was missing something.

Sam adopts a profit sharing plan for his sole proprietership. The sole proprietership does not have any employees. The plan has less than $100,000 in assets. Sam also owns an LLC that does not have employees & does not adopt the plan. My understanding is that since we have a group under common control a 5500 must be filed. I do not see any exception merely because the LLC doesn't participate. Anybody disagree? I just want to make sure I am not missing something.

Oops, I fogot which forum I was posting under. This is a SIMPLE IRA; I'm guessing your using the 5304 or 5305. The comp. definition is in the form; essentially you use 6051(a)(3) for an employee including owners of an s-corp. 6051(a)(3) says comp. as defined for federal income tax withholding purposes (3401(a)) & you also include deferrals made to the SIMPLE IRA. Basically that means box 1 of the W-2 plus elective deferrals to the SIMPLE IRA.

I'm really not sure what you are asking. Compensation is defined in the document; you need to start there. If you are asking whether S-corp. dividends are included in compensation, the answer is no. The cite I think is Durando v. U.S (70 F.3d 548)

I'm a little confused about whether there are 2 separate business or just a change in form from sole proprieter to LLC, but I don't see that matters. Even if there are 2 separate businesses both would be treated as one employer for the 415 limits.

Do you generally see any benefit in going through VFCP for late deferrals? The 5330 isn't difficult to complete & the excise tax is ususally pretty nominal. I'm just curious as to what other practioneers are doing. So far we haven't used it because we really don't see the benefit.

I get $25,000 For purposes of determining participant's loan limit; outstanding loans are still part of the participants vested balance. Also, the reduction for highest outstanding balance issues are applicable to the $50,000 limit, but not the 50% limit.

See Treas. Reg. §1.408-8, Q&A2 Q-2. Are IRAs that receive employer contributions under a simplified employee pension (defined in section 408(k)) or a SIMPLE IRA (defined in section 408(p)) treated as IRAs for purposes of section 401(a)(9)? A-2. Yes, IRAs that receive employer contributions under a simplified employee pension (defined in section 408(k)) or a SIMPLE plan (defined in section 408(p)) are treated as IRAs, rather than employer plans, for purposes of section 401(a)(9) and are, therefore, subject to the distribution rules in this section.

If Casual Employees are exluded in the plan document then what you are saying seems to be correct; unless of course the business is located in Kentucky. T-shirt & jeans are formal business attire & shoes are always optional for us.

I don't know. I might be reading something into the facts that aren't there. Perhaps Mr. Williams could clarify. I intepret it as there being 2 unrelated issues -- 1. The issue not directly ask is about the reasonableness of a 2 week wait. Its really a separate issue from the blackout notice, but if 2 weeks was already the norm he wouldn't need to mention reasonableness; that would have been addressed a long time ago. 2. Is a blackout notice needed? The blackout notice must be provided if the right "...to direct or diversify investments, obtain a loan or obtain a distribution under the plan may be temporarily suspended..." . Because I'm guessing the 2 weeks for distribs & loans is a delay, I would be inclined to provide the notice.

I guess he doesn't phrase it as a question, but he seems to be inquiring about the reasonableness of a 2 week delay in distributions & loans. If the 2 weeks was the normal delay there would be no need to mention it.

I took the post to assume that loans & distributions were being temporarily suspended. If 2 weeks was the normal delay for distribution & loan processing, the 2nd question in the initial post doesn't make sense.