Appleby

The amount is $200 ( no w/h required is the total distribution for the year is $200 or less). For $3.50 you do not even need to report the amount since it is less than $10

followed up at http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=24257

ty …From what understand, the term “beneficiary distribution account” is just a term used by some financial planners to refer to inherited/beneficiary IRA, i.e. an IRA established to maintained the inherited IRA assets. Do you use it in a different context? In any case, I think you will agree that it wouldn’t change Barry’s response…

Assuming the trust meets the requirements of Treas. Reg. §1.401(a)(9)-4, Q&A-5, minimum (post death) distributions may be determined using the oldest underlying beneficiary of the trust. For tax reporting purposes, all distributions that occur after the death of the IRA owner will be reported on IRS Form 1099-R under the name and TIN of the trust- and generally therefore taxable to the trust.

Agreed---for this purpose, the business owner includes the spouse and children, therefore, if the business owner, his/her souse and children are eligible, the plan may be adopted for the business. BTW, other names for the plan are Individual (k) Plan, Uni-K plan, One-man K plan etc. The brand name varies among providers.

Yes. The only exception is deferrals to 457 plans

Until you posted the question, I always assumed it would be a non-reportable trustee-to-trustee transfer---but your question made me take a closer look at the rules and now I am thinking it should be reported as a direct rollover, here’s why…. We know that the IRS often use the term trustee-to-trustee transfer to mean transactions where the assets are delivered directly from one trustee/custodian to the other- this could include non-reportable transfers and reportable transfers/direct rollovers. Most Custodians assume it is always used to refer to a non-reportable transaction- however, we know that is not always the case…case in point, Roth conversions and recharacterizations. Also, the instructions for filing Form 1099-R make a point of noting when a trustee-to-trustee transfer must not be reported on a Form 1099-R. One example is when a trustee-to-trustee transfer occurs between two traditional IRAs…another is “ from one tax-sheltered (section 403(b)) arrangement to another”…no exception is made for a transfer from a 403(b) to a defined benefit plan… The instructions also state that we should not “report transfers between trustees or issuers (unless they are direct rollovers from qualified plans)…”. ...….the instructions define a direct rollover as “ the direct payment of the distribution from a qualified plan (including a governmental section 457(b) plan) or tax-sheltered annuity to a traditional IRA or other eligible retirement plan”. Therefore, IMO, a trustee-to-trustee transfer between a 403(b) and a defined benefit plan is a direct rollover and must be reported on form 1099-R…

Hey amfam2- the only dumb question is the one not asked. Yes. If no extension was filed, then contributions must be made by the tax return due date to be deductible.

1.414©-4(b)(5) (ii) (B) seems to support your analysis…it states “Such individual is not a member of the board of directors, a fiduciary, or an employee of such organization and does not participate in the management of such organization at any time during such taxable year;”

Since the amount was returned to the plan, couldn’t the participant amend his/her tax return to show the amount as non-taxable…as would be done with a rollover amount? If the amount was returned after the 60-day period, then requesting an extension (of the 60-day period) from the IRS may be solution. What do you think?

I don’t see why not. The restriction is on maintaining both plans in the same year. If the 401(k) plan is frozen, then it is not being maintained, therefore, the employer should be eligible to establish a SIMPLE for the year.

I agree with Katherine. For a discussion on the topic ,see http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?a...st=0#entry82341

Amounts rolled over to the plan can be withdrawn at any time, providing the rollover amounts are separately accounted for by the employer (a few exceptions apply). See Revenue Ruling 2004-12 available at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rr-04-12.pdf. … In this case, it appears the individual may withdraw the rollover amount at any time...

By April 15, 2004. Postmark ( by April 15) acceptable

The actual transfer transaction cannot be recharacterized. For instance, you are not able to say, I want to treat my trustee-to-trustee transfer as if it was transferred to my traditional IRA instead of my Roth IRA. However, in your example, the customer would not be recharacterizing the transfer, he/she would be recharacterizing the contribution. It appears that the entire Roth IRA balance if from the $850 plus earnings. If this is so, then the customer would simply instruct the current custodian to recharacterize the entire account balance. If the Roth IRA has assets from other contribution or conversions, the applicable earnings must be computed, and the recharacterization amount would be the contribution plus earnings (or minus any loss). Some IRA custodians assist the IRA owner with the calculation- custodian are not required to do so- of those that will do the calculation, most will not if the contribution was made to the IRA while it was being held at another custodian. The regs for computing the earnings are at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-regs/td9056.pdf The customer may also want to check with the custodian regarding required paperwork for effecting the recharacterization

It appears there is an exception under 1.414©-4(b)(5), if the spouses meet all of the following requirements, and the company is not a partnership or a sole proprietorship 1.414©-4(b)(5) Spouse--(i) General rule. Except as provided in paragraph (b)(5)(ii) of this section, an individual shall be considered to own an interest owned, directly or indirectly, by or for his or her spouse, other than a spouse who is legally separated from the individual under a decree of divorce, whether interlocutory or final, or a decree of separate maintenance. (ii) Exception. An individual shall not be considered to own an interest in an organization owned, directly or indirectly, by or for his or her spouse on any day of a taxable year of such organization, provided that each of the following conditions are satisfied with respect to such taxable year: (A) Such individual does not, at any time during such taxable year, own directly any interest in such organization; (B) Such individual is not a member of the board of directors, a fiduciary, or an employee of such organization and does not participate in the management of such organization at any time during such taxable year; © Not more than 50 percent of such organization's gross income for such taxable year was derived from royalties, rents, dividends, interest, and annuities; and (D) Such interest in such organization is not, at any time during such taxable year, subject to conditions which substantially restrict or limit the spouse's right to dispose of such interest and which run in favor of the individual or the individual's children who have not attained the age of 21 years. The principles of Sec. 1.414©-3(d)(6)(i) shall apply in determining whether a condition is a condition described in the preceding sentence. What do you think?

See http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=23288

Not necessarily. The process that you outlined applies only if the beneficiary is a NRA, and only if the NRA chooses to waive withholding under IRC 3405. If the beneficiary does not choose to waive 3405 withholding, then the regular withholding rules apply with no options to waive withholding…the TIN is provided on Form W-4P.

I think you read it right the first time Lame Duck. The each refers to each spouse contributing $3,000, when their combined income is $150,000

Absolutely

Agreed. Good point

If the time stamp on your post is incorrect and if you care about that, you can change it at “My controls”- go to “board settings “ under options. I noticed that my posts were off 1-hour, which is now resolved by checking the “Is daylight savings time in effect?” box Who knows, maybe this could serve as an alibi in an important case -(I watch too much court TV)

The paralegal certification course covers material not included in the retirement plan courses. Therefore, is someone really wants to be a paralegal, then it may make sense to get the paralegal certification

A little off the track here, but…what’s your POV on a JD combined with a QPA or CPC from ASPA or comparable certification? Would you say an employer looking for employee benefits expertise would place equal weight on the QPA and LLM?

I’d say by being a paralegal (preferably certified) with experience in ERISA. Even better if you have the ERISA/QP certifications, such as those from NIPA, ASPA , ICB etc. to support your experience, but by then you may no longer want to be a paralegal, instead you may now want to be a consultant. As far as the job description, it may vary among employers- similar to “retirement plan consultant” which means something different for each employer.