pmacduff

We also use 541990.

Plan amended as of 07/01/2017 to exclude per diem employees. Plan is top heavy. Must per diems who were participants until 07/01 receive a top heavy contribution for 2017?

Thank you Larry. Yes - they are doing a manual filing. The odd thing is that I found that the 945 form specifically states that a rubber stamp signature is acceptable. (The 945 form is also signed under penalty of perjury.) While I know that ALL filing forms are important, it seems odd to me that the 945 will take a rubber stamp signature and goes so far as to mention it in the instructions, but there is no such mention in the 1096 instructions. The instructions don't even reference the signature. I agree that original signature would be the proper way to go but was curious nonetheless. This client has a Trustee that winters in Florida, so the signature stamp would be "easier" for them

Does anyone know if a signature stamp is acceptable on the 1096? I can't believe in all my years, I've never had anyone ask, but this year someone is asking me. Thanks in advance!

Unfortunately they did not get the payouts completed in 2017 so he will have to take the RMD first. Thanks again for all the input and "Happy Busy Season" to everyone!

It was pre-tax. Thank you both for your insights!

Participant is slightly ($18.00) over 402g for 2017, refund is processed on 01/03/2018. I know the participant will receive a 1099-R form next January from the vendor for th excess. My question is in regard to the 2017 W-2 form - will that show $24,018 or $24,000? Since there is no line on the 1040 return for the actual deferral amount I wasn't sure how that works. I've never seen the actual W-2 form for someone who exceeded the limit. I vaguely recall reading about someone doing their taxes on Turbo tax years ago and the software would not let them enter the higher amount, it gave them an error message. Just curious more than anything.....

ok received more information - this participant is going to be 70.5 this year (date of birth is 10/16/1947). I was intially advised he was already over age 70.5. That makes his RBD 04/2019 instead of 04/2018. I don't see where that changes anything, though, because as ESOP Guy mentions the rollover $$ is leaving the plan this year, which is the year he turns 70.5 even though he is not yet there. If he had rolled this out in 2017 he would not have had to take an RMD first. Do I have that correct?

So I guess this employee in essence "retired" from Employer A since it no longer exisits and therefore he would have to take his RMD before rolling. He has not met his RBD of April 1 of the year following retirement but I assume that does not change anything.

Thank you Madison. It was an asset sale. The new owner did not assume the Plan and plan liability. All employees (and participants) remain with the new owner performing the exact same jobs. If the plan had simply terminated with no changes to the company then the participant would NOT be required to take an RMD because he has not met his RBD. I found the following in an ASPPA article: " Non-5% Owner Working After Age 70½ and a Plan Termination Q: The RBD for non-5% owners in a plan is defined as April 1 of the year following the later of either the year age 70½ is reached or the year of retirement. The employer terminates the plan on Sept. 30, 2013. Must we pay RMDs to the non-5% owners who are over age 70½ and continue to work after the plan is terminated? A: No. When the plan terminates everyone will be required to receive a distribution of their balance in the plan. The non-5% owners over age 70½ who are continuing to work did not meet the plan’s definition of RBD at the time the plan was terminated. Thus, those individuals will be paid their entire plan balance and it will all be an eligible rollover distribution. If such an individual rolls it into an IRA, for example on Nov. 1, 2013, the first RMD from the IRA will be due by Dec. 31, 2014, based on the balance in the IRA on Dec. 31, 2013."

Company owner passes away and Company is sold fairly quickly. All exisiting participants continue working for the new owner in same positions. Exisiting 401(k) plan is termed by deceased owner's spouse (also a Trustee). Question is...one participant is over 70 1/2, non owner, still working. Is he required to take an RMD from his plan account under the termed plan prior to rollover? Termed Plan Doc language does delay RMDs for non-owners until they actually retire.

Is it a recorded line where your SSN is now on a tape somewhere?!......

similar to the one we get a lot from our small employers..."We hired a new: 'CEO/Controller/or insert title' and put in the employment contract that she/he can participate immediately in the 401(k) plan even though we require a year of service. Is that going to be a problem?" Happy New Year All!

In the past I have set the takeover loan up with a "fake" balance as Relius suggests and then simply remove the "fake" balance. You don't have to leave it in there unless you have to reverse the takeover loan transaction for some reason.

Thanks all for your responses! I did know I could get/create a spreadsheet to do this, but have found differences in the per payroll amounts between those and what Relius computes. Granted they are usually very small differences, but when you are preparing all the paperwork it is much easier if it matches up!

ok - for you long time Relius users: Prior to version 18 (I think) when the loan specs and info were separate on the "Data Entry" flag, you could model a loan for a participant and generate an amortization schedule without having to set up a loan. This was helpful for participants who were looking for the different repays for different time periods. I understand that the loan setup info has been moved to the participant census screens. Is there still a way to "model" a loan and generate an amortization without setting the loan up? Thanks in advance!

Non-owner participant has continued working past 70 1/2. Plan has delayed RMD rule for non-owners. Participant is retiring on 11/30/2017. First RMD for this participant is due by 04/01/2018. Termination and retirement distributions are normally done some time in May after the client has determined the allocation for the prior year. If the plan pays the participant an RMD now (in 2017) based on the 12/31/2016 balance and then the participant elects next May to roll entire remaining balance, must another RMD be made from the Plan account based on the 12/31/2017 balance before rolling to the IRA?

I remember my 9th grade English teacher got such a kick out of having me read the McDuff part when we read MacBeth and I always thought that "McDuff" in MacBeth was spelled incorrectly. Don't know how accurate it is but my paternal Grandfather told us that we were "Mac" because we were Scottish and that "Mc" was Irish. He was pretty particular about that distinction!

EBECatty the document should dictate whether or not you switch to the plan year. Everyone - thanks for your thoughts and responses. This not only clarifies it for me but also tells me why we don't see this that often! It could get cumbersome doing all of the tracking esp. if there is a large employee base. I have a client with 6 months of service elig. who wants to add an hours requirement to keep some people out. They don't use safe harbor and have run into ADP test issues. However they also don't want to add safe harbor (too expensive) or go to a year of service, 1000 hours.

back to basics and apologies for the simplicity of the question! If a plan has six months of service, can they also have an hours requirement (i.e. 500 hours in six months)? I thought I remembered from WAY back that if you had less than 1 YOS for eligibility that you could not have an hours of service requirement. However VS Plan Doc "seems" to allow it under the eligibility section but I had a client years back that had six consecutive month for eligibility and under IRS audit had employees that were required to participate that we thought could be excluded. the service spanning rules were cited, which I think might tie in to all this, but am really spinning wheels now. thanks in advance.

I don't think so not anymore anyway...this is from the Form 945 instructions: "Federal tax deposits must be made by electronic funds transfer (EFT). You must use EFT to make all federal tax deposits. Generally, an EFT is made using the Electronic Federal Tax Payment System (EFTPS). If you don't want to use EFTPS, you can arrange for your tax professional, financial institution, payroll service, or other trusted third party to make electronic deposits on your behalf. Also, you may arrange for your financial institution to initiate a same-day wire payment on your behalf. EFTPS is a free service provided by the Department of Treasury. Services provided by your tax professional, financial institution, payroll service, or other third party may have a fee. For more information on making federal tax deposits, see section 11 of Pub. 15. To get more information about EFTPS or to enroll in EFTPS, go to EFTPS.gov, or call 1-800-555-4477 or 1-800-733-4829 (TDD). Additional information about EFTPS is also available in Pub. 966. For an EFTPS deposit to be on time, you must submit the deposit by 8 p.m. Eastern

Thanks RBG, that is what I thought. I will confirm whether or not the son is a partner.

Searched for this but did not find matches... Exisiting DC Plan has husband, wife and son all participating. There is one employee who is not yet eligible. Plan assets total $180k. Should this plan be filing some version of a 5500 form? I know the one participant rules can apply for the spouses and assets below $250k, but I did not know with the son as an active participant and an employee who may eventually be eligible if they should be filing an "SF" or not? I believe that no returns have been filed up to this point. Thanks in advance for all replies.

I'm no Accountant or tax advisor, but isn't it possible as a disabled person (since 2003 per original post) that she did not owe any income taxes?

Our plans also have language similar to what ESOP Guy mentioned whereby the participant gets 70% of the vested balance as of the last valuation date with the remainder to be paid after the next following val date. It came to pass in most of our plans due to those who retired wanting to get at least some portion of their balance out immediately upon retirement.