Appleby

The Pershing Prototype SEP provides such as option. I will try to get a copy

The trustee cannot honor the disclaimer, because it does not meet the requirements of IRC 2518. The beneficiaries will have to remain beneficiaries, and will receive 1099-Rs for any distribution they request from the IRA. The children can distribute the assets and settle up with the beneficiaries of the estate, taking into consideration any income taxes they would owe on- or as a result of – the distributions. No ‘deemed distribution’ would occur, as the distributions are usually made only at the request of the beneficiaries ( except in the case of an orphan IRA). If the disclaimer had been done timely and met other requirements, and the estate became the beneficiary as a result of---then any 1099-R would be issued in the TIN of the estate- IRA FBO estate of John Brown.

Gary- apologies for the delayed response. This week is an on-the-road week for me. I agree with you. Completing a new 5304 would in effect replace the original document. Would you mind saying which financial institution you are working with? If you do not want to post it here, feel free to send me an E-Mail. To send me an E-Mail, click on my username and then click on the e-mail button to the right. I know quite a few operations managers and may be able to have them address the issue. Denise

No need to apologize. Better to make sure than to meet roadblocks later. You are correct again. So if I reword my comment a bit… When the employee establishes the IRA at the other firm, he/she completes the (New) form that is used to establish his/her individual retirement account. This New form is the 5305-SA or 5305-S or SIMPLE IRA adoption agreement and provides (along with the new 5305-SA or 5305-S or SIMPLE IRA adoption agreement ) a copy of the form used by the employer to establish the plan, i.e. the 5304/5305/protptype . I hope it goes well. Please let us know if you experience any challenges

I wouldn’t say you have it wrong. Some of us just tend to use ‘industry terms’, which sometimes confuse some of those who use the terms assigned by the IRS etc You have it right- except that I would say , a copy of the 5304 should not be completed

In the technical sense , you are right. In the practical sense, you may want to use the term “adoption agreement’, as that is the term used by most retirement plan practitioners- or find out what term your firm uses and use that term when communicating with them. Here are some examples -pulled from a Google search results- of firms that use “Adoption Agreement” to refer to the participant’s form: http://www.matrixcapitalgroup.com/New%20PD...s/ira_adopt.pdf http://www.highmarkfunds.com/Literature/EE...n%20Agmnt-F.pdf Schwab’s document at http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/home/a...efpid=P-1001546 I am not convinced it really matters what you call it, as long as you can get your contact at the firm to understand to which form you are referring. One form is completed by the employer to adopt the plan. The other is completed by the participant to establish the individual retirement accounts under the plan. When the employee established the IRA at the other firm, he/she completes the (New) form that is used to establish his/her individual retirement account and provides (along with the new adoption agreement) a copy of the form used by the employer to establish the plan.

Good question. It should be adoption agreement. The SIMPLE IRA adoption agreement (the SIMPLE-SA or the SIMPLE-S, or the custodians own Adoption agreement ) is completed by the account owner- see example at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f5305sa.pdf The account agreement is completed for all accounts. For IRAs, the IRA adoption agreement is completed in addition to the account agreement. The account agreement is usually separate from the adoption agreement, but some financial institutions merge both into one form.

Not necessarily. You may want to use a prototype SEP , which gives the employer the option of choosing to allow service with a predecessor employer to be counted for purposes of eligibility.

Maybe we want to use 'divorce decree' instead of QDRO, as QDRO usually applies to qualified plans. But unless you are getting a divorce, John Gs option woukd be the one to choose

No. The $4,000 is a ‘per person’ limit. You can split it between both types of IRAs, but your aggregate contribution cannot exceed $4,000 or $5,000 if you reach age 50 –or older-by year end. See IRS publication 590 at www.irs.gov. This also includes information about eligibility requirements for contributing for both types of IRAs

It seems the individuals you are speaking with do not understand the requirements. Unless the Merrill Lynch prototype says that assets under the SIMPLE cannot be held elsewhere, individuals hold their accounts at other financial institutions. From what I recall of the Merrill Lynch SIMPLE adoption agreement- there is no such restriction. The adoption agreement, which is the agreement you would complete to establish your SIMPLE IRA at the other financial institution, may have an area for your employer to complete and sign. That, along with a copy of the Merrill SIMPLE adoption agreement should be sufficient. You may need to have the call escalated to a manager

That statement appears to be inconsistent; if the $10,000 distributions were systematic based on her life expectancy then the 5 year year doesn't apply. If that's the scenario then I believe the intent of the new non-spousal rollover provisions is to allow her to roll out to an IRA and continue systematic distributions from it. As noted, we're awaiting regs for clarification on exactly what can be done and when. Bird, I’m not sure I understand why it is inconsistent. Under the five year rule, you can withdraw any amount- including zero dollars, providing the account is fully distributed by the end of the fifth year. Maybe the plan only offered the five year option? Or maybe she elected the five year option?

You are correct.

(1) Client offers a self-standing Section 105 medical expense reimbursement plan ("MERP"). They also allow employees to maintain HSAs. Can anyone confirm that Revenue Ruling 2004-45 allows a self-standing health FSA to provide limited purpose benefits in conjunction with an HDHP? (2) The MERP was revised to provide limited purpose benefits (dental and vision). The client wants it also to reimburse preventive care expenses. The HDHP already provides preventive care and in accordance with Notice 2004-23 the preventive care does not count towards the deductible, it is "first-dollar" coverage. So is it possible to still have preventive care expenses be reimbursable under the MERP, presuming they are not the same expenses that are covered under the HDHP? Would it have to do so only after the HDHP deductible is met? Example 1 - HDHP allows for one checkup visit per year. Employee gets a second checkup visit. Can the MERP reimburse the cost of the second checkup visit? If so can it do so only if the employee has met the deductible under the HDHP? Example 2 - Employee gets a full body scan, which detects for cancer, even though it is not a covered preventive expense under the HDHP. Can the MERP reimburse the cost of the body scan? If so can it do so only if the employee has met the deductible under the HDHP? All help would be greatly appreciated.

$93,000 should be $103,000

By the way, E:Mail was from NIPA and ASPPA- the header could not be copied. Neither NIPA nor ASPPA asked me to do this...but I though it would be of interest to many of the members of this board.

Did you get this E-Mail. This would be a good designation Reminder - ERPA Credentialing Survey Due Date: December 14th The IRS is considering a new Enrolled Retirement Plan Agent (ERPA) designation to permit retirement plan professionals, who are not otherwise approved to represent employers before the IRS, to communicate with the Service regarding retirement plan matters. Announcement of the ERPA designation may effect changes in the professional credentialing and management decisions of individuals and firms within the industry. New challenges and opportunities may also arise for organizations to customize their credential and education programs in response to the changing environment. ASPPA and NIPA, two noteworthy retirement professional organizations, have partnered in a survey to collect information regarding the ways in which ERPA might affect you and your firm. The link below will take you to additional background information about ERPA and several survey questions that we ask you to answer. Your input will provide a window on how the industry will respond to ERPA with respect to management and professional education decisions. If clicking on the link does not bring you to the survey, please highlight the link, copy and paste it into your Web browser. Survey link: http://inquisite.smithbucklin.com/surveys/H48PJR Your ideas and opinions are important to ASPPA and NIPA as we consider the impact of ERPA and further improvements to our credential and education programs. SmithBucklin Corporation's Market Research & Statistics Group, a third party research group, has been contracted by ASPPA and NIPA to conduct the ERPA Credentialing Survey. SmithBucklin will maintain the confidentiality of all individual responses as only the aggregate results will be released. Please direct your questions or comments regarding the survey to Mandy Frjelich at afrjelich@smithbucklin.com. The National Institute of Pension Administrators (NIPA), a national educational association representing the pension administration profession, fosters the highest standard of ethical and professional conduct by retirement and benefit plan practitioners by offering comprehensive educational programs; by sponsoring a certification program with professional designation; and by promoting local chapters to provide opportunities for self-improvement to all members and interested parties. 401 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 2200, Chicago, Illinois 60611 National Institute of Pension Administrators - "Education for a Brighter Future"

You can contribute to both a Roth and a traditional IRA in the same year, providing your aggregate contribution do not exceed $4,000.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-06-107.pdf Transition relief and model notice for diversification rights

They may be talking 2006 plan year, $44,000 + catch-up of $5,000- max $49,000

Thanks very much Leevena. This helped. The POP#3 was incorrect. Somehow- must be one of us of course-changed it so there was no periods between the pop.1and1.com. Thanks again Denise

...but I received E-Mails

Up to last night, E-Mails that I sent from Microsoft Outlook and Outlook Express were delivered. As of this morning, none of the many E-Mails I sent were delivered- yet they show up in my ‘Sent” folder. Anyone ever experienced this?

Hilarious... I shared it at Thanksgiving dinner last night- even those who thinks it was mean, still thinks it's very funny

http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/calculator/main.html http://askebsa.dol.gov/VFCPCalculator/WebCalculator.aspx Just an FYI