Belgarath

"FWIW - we only allow hardships based on the IRS' pre-defined reasons." Ditto.

Jpod - I think the "right to defer" notice is required under the QPSA regs. In other words, the plan can;t require a surviving spouse to receive the QPSA prior to the date the particpant would have attained age 62 or NRA. See 1.417(e)-1©.

I'd report the total of commissions and fees that the insurance company provides on the Schedule A, including the "non-monetary compensation." Since you aren't filing a Schedule A anyway with an SF, this makes sense, I think (insofar as anything to do with this garbage makes "sense") I'm always inclined to lean toward, "when in doubt, disclose." There's no harm in dislosing a little piece that you might technically not have to disclose.

Have you brought this up to a supervisor? (I realize that talking to anyone at the IRS in the last couple of weeks was pretty nearly impossible)

And yesterday, in a bizarre turnaround of the normal screw-ups, a client received notification that the IRS had received their extension request, when in fact no 5558 was ever filed! I'm speculating that perhaps someone else filed one using an incorrect number that happened to be our client's number...

Bird's post posited 10 rank and file employees.

Bird - if you are combining the plans for coverage testing, then don't you have to combine for nondiscrimination testing? So how would this benefit the owners, since all investment options would be subject to BRF testing? I'm sure I'm missing something here.

Nicely done! But don't ever forget that if you proactively team across functional boundaries, you can embrace the synergies created.

Wow, scrap all of this! As soon as you start looking into something, they come back and give you different information. What happened, in fact, is (as of now, until they change the story again) that the Head Honcho signed an election form deferring 0 (Zero.) Then he just sent in a check for his full deferral amount. Sheesh. As an academic exercise, without going back and re-reading it, I'm not sure the Example 12 in appendix B is an appropriate example. I'm not sure it covers Roth deferrals.

I understand there's a fix under Appendix A, .05, and Appendix B, example 12, of Revenue Procedure 2008-50. I just wondered if anyone else had encountered this and come up with a different alternative. Thanks for your response!

Plan that permits Roth deferrals, for reasons unknown, didn't withhold the money from the employee's paycheck. Employee then submitted the appropriate amount by personal check, which was deposited to the plan. This happened in 2010. This is also a plan large enough so that it will require an audit. Anyone ever encountered this? This should qualify for SCP. But what's the fix? Refunding the money to the employee, then having the employer submit the same amount, then having the employer withhold extra from next paycheck to make it back to the same place? This seems ridiculous, as the employee is paying tax one way or the other, and the W-2 will show full taxable income. So although "no harm no foul" - how would you handle such a situation?

I couldn't find an attachment either. Probably an attachment disorder...

According to Deep Thought, the answer would be 42. On a parenthetical note (pun intended) there's a bar in Ottawa named Zaphod Beeblebrox. The only math award I ever won in high school was the highest percentage of unexcused absences while still graduating...

In a purely gut reaction, having done no research whatsoever or even having given it any real thought, I'm inclined to wonder why it wouldn't just be considered part of the "normal" account balance? It's still part of the participant's plan account, and it isn't "rollover" money in the normal sense. I'd guess that it is not treated as an in-service distribution, nor a transfer. It's just included normally as part of the normal account balance.

Thanks, I was aware of this but the question I received didn't involve any business hardship. I should have specified this in the original post.

Hmmm, glad to see I'm not the only one who went through this thought process. Thanks for the link to the prior thread. Very interesting.

Say a plan has a safe harbor 3% nonelective, and provides the 3% to all employees. If mid-year they decide they want to amend to provide only to NHC, can they do this? Since the safe harbor regulations provide only that to qualify, you mst provide the SH for NHC, it would seem that such an amendment is permissible. However, I think you'd have to provide the 3% to the HC through the effective date of the amendment, give a proper notice, etc... I've never actually seen such a request, but a question came up. Thoughts?

Thanks Tom. Wish I'd seen that before I wasted my time on reading it wrong! Ah well, I made a lovely bourguignon with the crow, with pearl onions, mushrooms, a little bacon, bay leaf, garlic, salt & pepper, and red wine, and thickened the gravy with arrowroot. (I've eaten enough crow in my time so that I have perfected the art of making it taste good)

Wow, and after cogitating on this over the weekend, and re-reading the instructions to the Publication 560, I had this 100% backwards. You don't, for purposes of calculating the pension deduction, take the SEHI into account. That's what the asterisk on Line 2 of the 560 worksheet is telling you. Serves me right for being in a hurry. Sigh...this is actually very good news, as it makes the data gathering easier!

In case anyone is interested in the potential difference, I calculated a couple of examples manually. Assuming Schedule C incomes of $200,000 and $100,000, with a pretty hefty health insurance premium deduction of $16,000, the difference in the maximum contribution between someone claiming this deduction and someone who doesn't, is $42.00 and $226.00 respectively. If you drop the premium in half, reduce the differentials by half. Rounding could change these numbers by a small amount. All this, of course, is assuming my several thumbs didn't get tangled on the calculator...

Has the IRS ever formally adopted the DOL's sensible approach on this? (And this might be the only time you ever see "DOL" and "sensible" in the same sentence)

no.

What you describe is not a controlled group, barring unusual attribution from stock options, etc... Even if not a CG, it might possibly be an affiliated service group, but that's very specific to facts and circumstances, and you should have their attorney make a CG/ASG determination anyway.

So these are 2009 forms? Bird, did yours also have a $1900 penalty amount?

GROAN... Not again! No, we have not (yet) seen these. What year's forms? I want to know what to look forward to...