Jump to content


Senior Contributor
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Belgarath

  1. While I'd observe that I think you are oversimplifying the definition of Statutory Employee (see IRC 3121(d)(3)) I'd agree that if the employee is truly a Statutory Employee, (and not a full-time life insurance salesperson - see IRC 7701(a)(20)) they are independent contractors, and thus ineligible to participate in the plan - shouldn't need an additional special exclusion.
  2. Very sketchy info at this point, but likely that at least some years will be a large plan. Sure, they can do DFVCP, but how far back do they go with this? And there will likely be no way to get full data for all the post-2009 plan audits. We'll see. No, this isn't April Fool - I wish it was! Heckuva way to start a Monday morning... Anyone had one of these situations before? What were the results? Thanks!
  3. Agreed. Although... I suppose that depending upon employee population, might possibly be difficult to find a valid exclusion category that would apply only to this one person?
  4. I agree with Ratherbereading - your question(s) are very unclear, and based on what you have said, you won't get a good answer from this board. I will say that believe you are possibly confused as to the details. I don't for one second believe you were charged $17,000 "interest" on a $6,000 plan loan that was taken in 2016. As RBR suggested, contact Brighthouse, or whoever is responsible for the plan/reporting, and ask for a detailed explanation.
  5. Interesting - thanks. BTW, just curious - are you really getting a mad rush of potential clients who want to convert mid-year? We haven't seen it.
  6. So, FWIW (nothing) here's my thought. Yes, the law says what the law says. But because that frequently isn't crystal clear in black and white, that's why we have regulations, Notices, Revenue Rulings, etc., and ultimately court cases. Seems to me like the Congressional intent was to require that the new plan be ESTABLISHED the day after. Just my opinion. But in the absence of some additional specific guidance, do you want to be the one out on the window ledge? I'm more cowardly by nature, and I wouldn't push the edge of the envelope. You may well be right. I just wouldn't adopt your opinion, at least at this time.
  7. Well, this is for tax year ending on or after 12/31/2023. Agreed it is a PITA. But there's some time, although not that much, before they are actually due, and hopefully it isn't a high-volume item for your client base. Our thought, off the cuff at the moment, is to send them out, have client sign them and return to us, and by the time they are due, there will hopefully be providers that are ready. I feel pretty confident that there will be reputable organizations that will be ready in time. I might change my tune as we consider more fully.
  8. Do you have a 5500 form filing software provider, such as FT William or whoever? If so, have you contacted them to see if they are approved, and if/how you can sign up for the "module" or whatever? I have not encountered this yet, so thank you for bringing it up! Update - I got a response already from FT William's wonderful support folks. They are actively working on this, and will be an authorized provider, but do not yet have a specific release date.
  9. Sure. Your wife says much nicer things about you than mine does about me...
  10. Still seems funny not having Tom remind us of this. Tom, if you are lurking out there, Happy Pi Day.
  11. Question I'm not clearly understanding. I know that you cannot include LTPT in testing for some purposes, and not for others. Basically "all or nothing" - that is, 401(a)(4),ADP/ACP. 410(b), etc. What I'm not clear about is, for example, suppose the employer provides that LTPT who defer will also receive a match. Can the employer STILL exclude the LTPT employees, for all the above testing purposes, or must they all now be included for all of the testing? I think it is the former, although it seems counterintuitive, but I'm not certain. (P.S. - I base my theory that it is the former on the proposed Regs, and nearly at the end under Section f(3)(i) Example 1((a) and (B).)
  12. Peter, this compliment is long overdue. You are without question one of the most objective and fair minded observers I've encountered, as well as being a great source of information. If you decide to run for higher office, I'll vote for you!
  13. I'm re-upping this thread. The 8822-B instructions are still from 2019 on the IRS website. While the 2023 5500-SF instructions for line 2a, under the NOTES, still say to inform the IRS via 8822-B for an address change, the 8822-B instructions (2019) still say there is no penalty, and that for a change of address that use of this form is voluntary. Has anyone seen any new movement/information on this issue?
  14. Agreed. As I said, we always specify it is their decision, with the advice of tax/legal counsel. We do provide "discussion points" to educate them and for them to discuss with their attorney, with references to Code/regs. It's just that they hardly ever do. I can probably count on my fingers and toes the number of times in the last 10 years or so that a client actually has done so.
  15. Gotcha - I just couldn't, offhand, see why they would bother if they already passed, but this clears it up. It's been a long week, and my brain obviously needs recharging! Thanks.
  16. Plan excludes bonuses. Plan passes 414(s) test, even excluding bonuses - HCES take big bonuses. Plan passes ADP testing excluding bonuses. Question has been asked as to whether the plan can run ADP test based on full compensation. Well, it CAN, (plan operationally allows for employer to elect any other definition of comp as long as it passes 414(s)) but why would they want to do that? Any ideas as to why this might be beneficial? I'm not seeing it offhand... maybe allowing some shifting to the ACP test by creating more room under the ADP test?
  17. Some of both. But the majority is playing music created by various artists - typical stuff. We always specify that they need to make their own decision, with the advice of legal/tax counsel, but they rarely do... On a smell test, I wouldn't classify this as a "performing arts" situation.
  18. I'm wondering whether a radio station would be considered a "service organization" for these purposes. I think it is not. There is a substantial investment in equipment, transmitters, etc., etc., and there's no personal service performed by "one or more individuals." Any other thoughts?
  19. Looking for conversation/thoughts/opinions, if you are interested. Expanding upon this question a bit, re reporting for QBAD's, Emergency Personal Expense (the "$1,000 one"), Terminal illness, Domestic abuse. As I understand things, maybe incorrectly... None are Eligible Rollover Distributions for withholding purposes, so withholding is voluntary - 10% default, but can elect out of it - or elect more if desired. 1099-R - QBAD is Code 1. For the other 3, it seems there is a choice between 1 and 2 depending upon age/facts and circumstances. No premature distribution tax on any of them, if they qualify. May require them to report properly on their 1040. Thanks for any input! Mom always said I'd come to a bad end - this business is starting to look like it qualifies as such!
  20. I believe the proposed regs say that if you have elapsed time, as long as the waiting period isn't longer than12 months, then LTPT doesn't apply anyway?
  21. I believe that compensation for 415 limits includes comp from all employers participating in the MEP.
  22. Retirement plan income. I expect it is in some kind of electronic limbo. If nothing happens in the next month I'll have to call the taxpayer advocate. Very strange - in the past, I've actually been shocked at how FAST it was processed! Maybe just an accumulated bad karma debt...
  23. I'm finding this subject confusing, particularly due to the fact that some vendors/recordkeepers are handling the process differently, or their information is contradictory/confusing, etc. So, it is very clear that a QBAD is reported on a 1099 as a Code 1. A PLESA (which I hope never to encounter anyway) is treated as a qualified Roth distribution, and reported as such. For other SECURE/2.0 special distributions, it seems like a Code 2 is possible if the "AND YOU KNOW" clause in the 1099 Code 2 instructions is satisfied. Are you allowed to use a Code 1, even if you "know" - or if the employee certification doesn't convince you - you are allowed to rely on it, but are you allowed to REPORT as a Code 1, or MUST you report as a code 2 if you ostensibly "know" it qualifies? Other observations? Floundering a bit on this... Thanks.
  24. Just curious as to what people may be hearing. Remarkably simple income tax return filed electronically end of January - IRS refund website confirms accepted January 31. Refund still not approved/processed. Return has 2 W-2's 2 1099's. That's it, standard deduction. In the past, these have been processed VERY fast. And everyone I know who filed at the same time this year got their refund processed and received very quickly. There's no option I'm aware of to actually talk to someone at the IRS who can say what the hold-up is. When I did call, the phone message was the EXACT wording that is on the "Where's my Refund" site. I just wondered if other folks you might know are encountering similar delays. It isn't anything critical - it's not like it is needed to pay bills or get groceries - it is just annoying!
  • Create New...