Appleby

I hear ya on the headache Kate. By the way, I merged your two theads, to make it easier for others to follow- just in case you wondered... If you get these and other SEP/SIMPLE issues ofen, you may find the SEP/SIMPLE answer book invaluable...Personally, I never leave home without it http://www.aspenpublishers.com/Product.asp...cookie%5Ftest=1. I like the online version, because of the search feature. However, it expires and is unaccessable after a year- unless renewed. So, I do both...

http://benefitslink.com/newsletter/ http://www.plansponsor.com/ http://www.ebia.com/ http://www.401khelpcenter.com/ http://tax.cchgroup.com/default

Doesn’t sound like an option PATA. Recall that the amounts rolled from SIMPLE and Traditional IRAs must be pre-tax amounts, and would retain that status in the qualified plan

Thanks...I forgot about the verification piece. Denise

Hi JEVD, The Retirement and Savings Committee arm of the SIA is having ongoing discussions with the IRS regarding the forms. I will forward your comments to them. I have a question though… excuse my ignorance, but I am not sure what you mean when you say you control the information. Wouldn’t the transaction be done the same way it’s being done for other ACH transactions? From the IRS’ bank to the Credit Union/brokerage house?

Hi All, If you are an IRA Custodian, this may be on interest to you. http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=161331,00.html It seems OK to me. One concern we had was how to apply the refund if it came in after the tax filing deadline, but that has been addressed. Also, the responsibility for ensuring the custodian codes the amount as a carry-back contribution rests with the IRA owner- which seems like a good thing.

Thanks again

Am I missing something, or is the text of the explanation one year off for the “Additional IRA contributions for certain employees (secs. 25B and 219 of the Code)” provision. The explanation says “Under the provision, an applicable individual may elect to make additional IRA contributions of up to $3,000 per year for 2006-2009”. This seems to say that 2006 the contribution can be made for 2006. Under effective date, it says “The provision is effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2006, and before January 1, 2010”. This seems to exclude 2006. Am I missing something? Also, does anyone know where we can find a copy of the Public Law? It's not available on Thomas

Thanks Bird

On the subject of rollover, would you agree that under PPA 2006 , payout options for beneficiary IRAs have remained the same as they were before PPA? I.e. , once the rollover contribution is made to the IRA, the beneficiary can designate a successor beneficiary( assuming the IRA agreement allows)…and the successor beneficiary can continue distributions, should the first beneficiary die, providing the distributions are taken over the life expectancy used by the first generation beneficiary?

TECHNICAL EXPLANATION OF H.R. 4, THE “PENSION PROTECTION ACT OF 2006,” AS PASSED BY THE HOUSE ON JULY 28, 2006, AND AS CONSIDERED BY THE SENATE ON AUGUST 3, 2006 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=32951

Ok- I feel real silly and sheepish right now, and I must apologize for wasting your time. In the extreme left column-the icon indicate the status of each thread, such as ‘new replies’. ‘no new replies’ etc. ‘No new replies’ actually means that no new replies has been posted since your ( or my last visit), not ( as I mistakenly thought) that ‘no new replies’ are allowed. My sincere apologies… Denise

Thanks Stephen

No apologies necessary. Thanks for checking. Denise

This one seems to be- as it says no new posts. ...but I think Moderators are not excluded even in such cases

Looks like it's happening to all the new post added over the last day or two...and it seems moderators can add to posts.... will check with Dave

Thanks Gary

I noticed that my last few posts, including some tests ones that I deleted, are automatically closed, i.e. they do not allow responses by other members. Can anyone say why? Did I click some button that I should not have? I noticed it also occurred with posts for a few other members. Of course, this may mean that you cannot respond to this message, and may need to start a new thread with your response Thanks Denise

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20060817-1.html

http://www.sia.com/press/2006_press_releases/29971793.html

Congress Approves Legislation to Clarify Source Tax Law http://www.watsonwyatt.com/us/pubs/insider...ArticleID=16352

Since the amounts are under $200, there shoudn't be a withholding issue- right? How about treating the amounts as abandoned property?

See http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/...63----000-.html Scroll down to 'spouse'

…also, distributions for less than $10 need not be reported on a 1099-R ( Source : Instructions for filing 1099-R)

My firm has the same policy. Your firm's policy may be because of NASD Rule of Conduct 2210 I if they are an NASD firm) - see http://apps.nasd.com/investor_information/...igByAcronym.asp. I think, instead of checking into each designation, firms prefer to play it safe and disallow all designations on their business cards.