Flyboyjohn

Perfect, now do what you thought: "To correct this, it seems logical to file an amended 2012 filing for the non-union plan, using new plan number 502." In filing the amended return it's critical that you reference the AckID for the original filing for the non-union plan.

Yes, she's still a plan participant despite losing eligibility for future contributions

Seems to me that if the plan has only been adopted by 1 of the 3 entities then only the K-1 and earned income from that one entity can be considered (unless they're on a standardized prototype which automatically sucks in other members of the controlled group)

Self-funded plan testing under 105(h) is done on a controlled group basis but I can't answer as to the "how" since in my experience that testing is often ignored and not something the IRS has ever focused on as an audit initiative.

First step I would take is to go to the DOL website and confirm which 2012 5500 for Plan 501 the DOL is "recognizing". I find it hard to believe they would recognize 2 filings for the same year and plan number without considering the first filing as being overriden by the second or possibly not accepting the 2nd filing. Please report what you find and maybe I or someone else will have a suggested approach.

I don't believe where the dirt is located matters, what matters is that there's a domestic Trust and a Trustee subject to jurisdiction of US courts. That being said I like the suggestion of holding title in a shell entity and having the plan own the entity for more reasons than just qualified plan issues.

Unfortuantely not, having positive guaranteed payments but a larger amount of ordinary loss (resulting in a negative line 14) means no earned income and therefore nothing to defer against.

Use 10/1 which means 7 months from October 2013 puts you at 5/31/2014 to file your 5558

"Key Person" life insurance is usually owned by and payable to the company (to cover the finaicial loss the company would experience from the premature death of the executive). I don't see any way that can be stretched to be an "employee benefit" (it benefits the company, not the employee) or an "employee benefit plan" and accordingly no ERISA implications. However, if the insurance is being purchased to informally fund a non-qualified deferred compensation plan then ERISA can apply to that "plan" and hence the need for filing a Top Hat Exemption Letter with DOL.

Yes, all employees are eligible for and are "participants" in the TDA plan. Any rationale given by the vendor for a separate plan?

Assuming the employees who "elect" this voluntary coverage are having their premiums deducted from their pay as after-tax deductions I don't see how this can be considered a section 79 group term life insurance plan or there can be any imputed income.

Can anyone point me to a cite for the proposition that the elective deferral of a self-employed individual has to be made by January 30th?

To put a twist on this thread and being naturally suspicious of situations involving doctors I'd bet $10 that for the portion of the year that she was purportedly a solo practitioner with a SEP she was actually in an affiliated service group with the retiring doctors LLC that she purchased. I'd bet another $1 that they're dentists.

No benefit from delaying the audit for the 1 month short year until the next 12 month full year audit (in fact you may pay more since the pesky accountants may increase their fees). I would recommend engaging the CPA to do both the 11/30/XX full year and 12/31/xx short year audits at the same time and get them both out of the way at the same time.

The children do not have to stay on dad's plan and can qualify for subsidies. The final regulations under IRC 36B provide that children eligible for coverage because of their relationship to a parent but who are not tax dependents of that parent are not disqualified from receiving premium tax credits. Sounds like you divorce attorneys came up with a pretty good plan.

IRS notice requests a reply with an option to select "thanks for letting us know, we're filing under DFVCP". How did client respond to IRS? I'd be inclined to immediately refile the delinquent 5500s checking the DFVC box, pay the penalty and send an "amended" response to IRS with the DFVC confirmation numbers.

Thanks Pension Pro, do you have a cite?

Have a situation where we can demonstrate employer intent, both by clear instructions to the plan document provider and actual operation of the plan, but document provider made a scrivener's error in a plan amendment. I know IRS historically doesn't recognize scrivener's errors but wondering if anyone has seen any losening of that position or whether an anonymous VCP filing would just be a waste of time? Thanks

While the last post characterized the link to the Zane Benefits thread as a "good summary" I would contend that it's an incorrect interpretation of the current state of the law.

Off the top of my head don't know of any way to convert a Roth to a traditional. If there aren't any pesky other IRAs to gum up the process how about making traditional IRA contributions and immediately converting to Roth?

Yes, the 9.5% of FPL safe harbor for "affordability" is in reference to the employees share of the premium for the self-only coverage and what the employee has to pay to cover spouse and/or kids is disregarded

Under the facts presented I see no problem with making and allocating a 2012 profit sharing contribution in 2014 (nor for that matter a contribution for 2011, 2010, etc.)

FWIW in the 36 states operating under a Federally Facilitated Marketplace they're requiring pediatric dental and vision must be OFFERED but doesn't have to be PURCHASED. Outside of the marketplace pediatric dental and vision has to be PURCHASED as a condition of purchasing basic medical coverage in order to meet EHB.

Thanks, so playing devil's advocate if I have a doctor/plan sponsor/trustee who against my advice takes an in-service distribution of elective deferrals prior to 59 1/2 or an in-service distribution of money purchase pension plan $$ it could be "fixed" by asking himself to repay it and possibly needing to make a VCP filing? Seems like too light a sanction for a serious violation of law.

Thanks for continuing the discussion and sharing your point of view. Do you mind providing an example or 2 or where the employer-make-whole rule WOULD apply? Still can't get my arms around the position that a plan can violate the law and get away with just asking the participant to return the $$.