Flyboyjohn

Separately

Earnings subject to self-employment tax (14A)

IRS rationale was that taxpayers can't be trusted to not back-date documents and having $100 in a trust bank account provided extrinsic proof that stuff did happen on or before 12/31.

Technically there would be nothing wrong with the CB plan but the SIMPLE IRA would be retroactively "disqualified" and have to be "undone" for 2018. There may be scenarios where retroactively blowing up the SIMPLE IRA is worth the expense and aggravation.

If she can find a U.S. IRA custodian who will open an IRA for her she can defer (not avoid) U.S. tax by rolling over. Sooner or later US taxes will have to be paid when the IRA is distributed (30% mandatory Federal income tax withholding if $$ is sent outside the US?).

Good facts would include this being a restatement document and not the initial adoption and any extrinsic evidence that the participants were made aware of the 1 year wait in enrollment materials or other communications. Also check the eligibility rules that were communicated to the recordkeeper.

Don't give the IRS the choice because you know which one they'll choose. File anonymously and if you have good facts your chance of getting the retro amendment accepted are pretty good.

Yes if the employer is requiring proof that the extra wages are being used to pay premiums but not if the employer is simply determining the amount of the extra wages on the basis of what the executive is "probably" paying in premiums.

Yes you're free to determine extra taxable wages in any manner you choose.

Sure is

Why in the world did they set up a trust? Have they filed for tax exemption for the trust? Unless they're a huge company with huge dollars involved a trust sounds like a mistake.

Although part of the "plan" and requiring reporting on Schedule A the fully insured benefits do not impact Schedule H nor are they part of the IQPA report since the premiums never become "plan assets".

Hopefully your client didn't set up a trust so there will never be "plan assets" and it will be an unfunded welfare benefit plan paid from employer general assets and exempt from filing until the participant count goes over 100. So no 2017 5500 and depending on size of participant population maybe no 5500 ever.

Yes, this one was the preparer accidently answering Yes to the question on non-exempt transactions when he meant to answer the fidelity bond question.

Appears that DOL Philadelphia Region has started another round of letters inviting participation in VFCP based on transgressions reported on 5500s filed "within the past 2 years" (sample attached). They're also offering free webinar workshops on VFCP that are open to all and are well worth attending. Sample DOL VFCP invitation letter 07-17-18_16660886(1).PDF

Agree that the hard coded match is problematic but I think with respect to the non-elective it's mere eligibility that's relevant, not the actual receipt of an allocation so I would have no problem with only providing non-elective allocations to employees with a certain tenure beyond 1 YOS. Actually had an employer that used to give 30-year employees a $30,000 bonus until convinced of the wisdom (and significant payroll tax savings) of providing them a $30,000 profit sharing allocation (only NHCEs obviously).

Even when the ALE offered affordable coverage some full-time employees were able to get PTC/CSR subsidies and it's causing the IRS to propose the 4980H(b) ESRP against the ALE. So I'm curious if we "prove" to IRS that our employee was not entitled to any subsidy because we offered affordable coverage will the IRS go back against the employee to recoup the subsidies? If so the employer may decide to not fight the "b" penalty to avoid antagonizing the employee.

Yes, you can check both boxes but be careful that the only information included on Schedules C and H (and the only items included in the CPA audit) is the trust activity.

Since this is a vendor requirement I wouldn't hesitate to throw them on a preapproved ERISA document to shut the vendor up but otherwise ignore it.

Not excludable but certainly not likely to make 401k contributions so I would think you'd be looking at a safe harbor match plan design (with a triple-stacked-match if the owners are looking to maximize at the 415 limit)

Don't worry, be happy, it's actually as simple as it sounds, no schedules apply

Yes, that's what we do

Employer fell on hard times and suspended their match but informally promised participants that when their financial situation improved they would make up the missed matching contributions. Employer is now ready to make up the missed matching contributions and several participants are no longer employed. Is there a 415 problem with making contributions for participants who have no current compensation so long as the employer designates the contributions as relating to prior years when compensation would fully support the contributions? This is a tax exempt employer so there's no 404 deduction issue.

One thing to watch out for is an exclusive provider requirement in the contract with the carrier. This comes up a lot where the employer wants to offer a "skinny" self-insured MEC arrangement but also offer a traditional fully-insured plan.

Anybody have experience with an IRS audit of a cafeteria plan for compliance with section 125 non-discrimination testing? Doesn't seem to be something IRS has much interest in. Thanks