Jump to content

jpod

Senior Contributor
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    3,121

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    39

 Content Type 

Profiles

Forums (Message Boards)

Everything posted by jpod

  1. jpod
    loserson: You're the one who put "employees" in quotes. To me that meant they were not employees any longer. I guess I misunderstood your premise.
  2. jpod
    In what industries is such potential insurance fraud commonly found?
  3. jpod
    FGC: Example: Plan says distributions are payable only upon termination of employment or death. In operation, distributions requested at or after age 59-1/2 are made. Are you asking what provision in the law, which in my view would include case law, or regulations, is the authority for saying that these distributions result in plan disqualification? I don't have a cite for you, but there must be one. The late, great Marty Slate wrote a comprehensive article about 30 years ago (which helped to create EPCRS). I would check that out.
  4. jpod
    Fair point, and I made the same assumption. Nevertheless it still is a concern to me and for that matter since it is a db plan it would seem to make overall sense from a tax perspective for the employer entity to paying those expenses, rather than the plan (unless it is clearly overfunded).
  5. jpod
    Luke, do you disagree with my point about actuaries' and auditors' training being analogous? Isn't expertise in the matter for which the service-provider is being retained something that should be expected and not something which the plan should have to subsidize? If so, it is not a reasonable expense. The fact that the trustee is (presumably) not being compensated shouldn't be relevant.
  6. jpod
    If it's considered a plan expense, I don't believe it's a "reasonable" expense. You must satisfy both requirements. Would it be reasonable to separately reimburse the plan actuary to take courses on how to value pension plan liabilities, or to reimburse your auditor on how to audit a pension plan? Of course not, and I think this is analogous.
  7. jpod
    chc93: Is that how the 5500 rules work? Zero assets NET of liabilities rather than zero assets NOT NET of liabilities?
  8. jpod
    If they had assets 6/30/19 then a 5500 is required for the next PY; I would be surprised if anyone could suggest anything else that is viable. On the other hand, if there was a zero balance at 6/30/19 but the employer deposited $250 AFTER that date I think you have a good argument that 6/30/19 is the final 5500 and none is due thereafter.
  9. jpod
    It would be worthwhile to check the insurance contract to make sure there aren't minimum coverage requirements that could come back to slap the acquiring employer in the face.
  10. jpod
    Not "compensation." Worker "classification."
  11. jpod
    Unless there is something special in the W-2 instructions (easy enough to do a word search through the instructions), I would think it should be treated just like a for profit NQDC Plan.
  12. jpod
    A plan that does not cover employees is not a plan subject to ERISA, but of course that is putting the rabbit in the hat and there is no need here for a dissertation on the potential adverse consequences of worker misclassification.
  13. jpod
    I, too, am trying to translate, but maybe the accountant is suggesting that there should be amended filings to move some K-1 income to a W-2. If that is done along with all the required 941 and ancillary corrections that could be a solution to the problem.
  14. jpod
    I see this as a claim for benefits under ERISA, in which case the Plan itself is a defendant, but because it is self-funded if you are successful in litigation your wife's employer pays, and the employer will have to pay for the defense. You may also wish to sue Anthem too, and the employer as well, if you think there are viable breach of fiduciary duty claims against either or both. If your wife works at an employer location in Florida there should be venue in Florida Federal Court under ERISA's expansive venue rule. CAUTION: Get a copy of the claims procedures for the Plan and make sure you adhere to them before filing a lawsuit. They are probably in, or attached to, the actual Plan document and/or the Summary Plan Description.
  15. jpod
    I googled it and this popped out in 2 seconds: Rev. Rul. 2002-45. Hopefully that is what you were remembering.
  16. jpod
    The only thing I think I can help you with is that it was a Rev. Rul.
  17. jpod
    Ok, my bad. My answer is the same unless the plan and/or loan documents don't permit partial repayment.
  18. jpod
    This is silly. Unless there is something to the contrary in the loan documents, which is extremely unlikely, the participant must be allowed to pay off the loan in full early by repaying the outstanding principal balance plus interest accrued to date. If some service provider has to jump through some hoops too bad.
  19. jpod
    Belgarath, that's my recollection too concerning standardized prototypes, but it doesn't cure the tax deduction problem if the relevant entity - in this case the Schedule C filer - never adopted the plan. In any event the facts stated here are that the plan was adopted (only) "for the S corp"
  20. jpod
    Many questions, starting with "why is there Schedule C income and no W-2 from the S corp"? Sounds very fishy, but let's assume it's not. In that event, isn't the bottom line that there can be no DB accruals or deductions for 2018 if the Schedule C filer did not adopt the plan prior to 12/31/18?
  21. jpod
    Not to throw gasoline on the fire, but I wonder if the Plan document or the Loan Procedures requires payroll deduction of loan repayments.
  22. jpod
    I agree with MoJo but I hear the OP saying that not even a confirmation letter was received. That would trouble me as we all know the IRS was in a bit of a shambles for a period of time following the shutdown. I don't think an inquiry to make sure that the file hasn't been "lost" is poking the bear.
  23. jpod
    The ruling involved an IRA with the surviving spouse ultimately being deemed to be the beneficiary via the estate after the designated trust beneficiary and all other affected parties disclaimed. Not clear whether the analysis in that ruling would apply to a 401(a) plan, but perhaps it could.
  24. jpod
    We are told that by default the beneficiary is the estate and that there is only a single heir to take the residuary estate. I don't believe that the IRS has ever issued a private ruling or other form guidance that would permit a "look-through" of the estate so that the individual can be deemed to be the designated beneficiary and roll to an inherited IRA, but I could be wrong.
  25. jpod
    An estate cannot disclaim.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use

  I accept