Harwood

Don't know the answers but here is where you can start: http://www.hacienda.gobierno.pr/contactanos.asp

$2,500 is a reasonable amount for this job, if well done.

jhilliard has the best, pratical solution: get another check - one that clears - from the Participant.

Don't forget state laws

I thought the Form 945 Instructions and Publication 15 made it clear that there is no commingling of 941 and 945 funds for purposes of determining the deposit schedule. And, for 945 funds, you are only required to use EFTPS in 2004 if: The total deposits of such taxes in 2002 were more than $200,000 or You were required to use EFTPS in 2003.

Excerpts from PROPOSED reg 1.89(k)-1(d)(3): Certain on-site medical and eating facilities are exempt from the requirements of section 89(k)(1)(A). An on-site medical facility is described in this paragraph if it is located and operates exclusively on a work-site of the employer and there is no physician care provided at the site at any time. A wellness program sponsored by the employer may be considered an on-site medical facility. A medical facility is not described in this paragraph unless access to the facility is available on the same terms to each member of a group of employees that is defined under a reasonable classification set up by the employer that does not discriminate in favor of highly compensated employees. An eating facility is described in this paragraph if it is described in and meets the requirements of section 132(e)(2). Of cource Section 89 is the infamous section that was repealed in 1989 because of employer outcry.

If the balance is from deferrals, the IRS offers no hope. Ten cents is the amount in Question 77 at: http://aspa.org/archivepages/gac/1999/99irsq&a.htm Reish Luftman has some comments at: http://www.reish.com/practice_areas/Techni...ps/IRStip79.cfm

According to RIA, "Securities are not 'readily tradable' if they are not 'publicly traded' or are subject to a trading limitation at the time of distribution." RIA's source: "S Rept No. 95-1263 (PL 95-600) p. 86."

I speculate that the reason for "last known mailing address" is to ensure that the parties get any notices, especially from the Plan Administrator. I think that using their attorneys for collecting their QDRO-related mail meets the intent of 414(p) and maintains the privacy of the actual physical location of the parties.

Might be a long shot, but I would try speaking to another IRS agent. Get a second opinion.

Define 2 1/2 months.

414(p) requires the last known mailing address. Some QDROs use the attorney's addresses, which satisfies 414(p) and privacy concerns. Beware in pro per!

In many ways a loan is a distribution. Can't this be corrected under the RP 2003-44 methodologies?

I've seen partners who were Professional Corporations. That didn't stop them from participating in the Plan.

Participant should be asked to show where in the 1099-R Instructions or the IRS provided language "SPECIAL TAX NOTICE REGARDING PLAN PAYMENTS" or in the Code or Regulations it states that their rollover-eligible distribution is exempt from withholding.

Take them now. Never depend on pending legislation.

People with sick pay only would be like terminees with on-going severance payments. They have Compensation that may meet the definition of Plan Compensation, however, they have no hours of service during the year. I am unsure exactly how to treat them.

1. If Compensation starts with W-2 compensation - and the arrangement with the Third Party carrier is such that the payments get on the Employer's W-2 - then Third Party Sick Pay is part of Compensation. 2. If Compensation throws out taxable fringe benefits and taxable welfare benefits, then Third Party Sick Pay might be excluded here. Does anyone out there have an opinion on this? 3. 401(k) withholding by the Third Party is difficult. Any taxes withheld by the Third Party Insurance Carrier are remitted by the carrier to the government agencies [though the Employer must pay the Employer portion of FICA and get the wages on the Employer's W-2]. I suppose the Third Party could remit 401(k) deferrals to the Trust. [My answers are based on first-hand payroll experience that ended a decade ago. These days, it might be routine for Third Parties to withhold and remit deferrals]

You might try page 52 of IRS Publication 535 "Business Expenses" http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p535.pdf Also, Treasury Regulation 1.62-2

Many businesses receive a 1099MISC for the services they rendered during the year. These forms are trashed. I suspect the 1099MISC you have for a "dividend" paid to the plan can also be thrown out. It has no relevance.

Line 2 of Form 5329 is used to report an incorrect 1099-R coding http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i5329.pdf http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f5329.pdf

This is probably out-of-context: § 1.401(a)(9)–1 Minimum distribution requirement in general. Q–2. Which employee account balances and benefits held under qualified trusts and plans are subject to the distribution rules of section 401(a)(9), this section, and §§ 1.401(a)(9)–2 through 1.401(a)(9)–9? A–2. (a) In general. The distribution rules of section 401(a)(9) apply to all account balances and benefits in existence on or after January 1, 1985. Don't forget: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?s...t=0entry83698 where the comment is made that the Model Amendment does not support ignoring receivables.

If you were in California, you would be protected from losing accrued vacation.

Although administratively a hassle, some plan sponsor allow loans to be rolled into their plans. It helps the participant who otherwise would have to pay off their old loan at their old plan or have a unwelcome taxable event for the amount of their loan balance.

Back when only deferrals were ineligible for rollover, Notice 99-5 said that if another legal event occurred - such as age 59 1/2, then the deferrals were eligible for rollover, even if distributed as a hardship. Notice 2000-32 said that this treatment was optional, pending further guidance. What do people think about a hardship distribution these days - from mixed deferrals and profit sharing sources - to someone over 59 1/2. Eligible for rollover because over 59 1/2 or not eligible for rollover because of hardship?