Mike Preston

You didn't take the time to read the whole thread, did you? Anybody who claims that any part of the principal repaid is double taxed is, shall we say, mathematically challenged.

Clearly. Subject to 411(d)(6) getting in your way. It doesn't sound like 411(d)(6) is an issue.

Since when is asking somebody to follow up profane? :-)

Ed, I'm not convinced anything is wrong. Of course, without seeing the documents I'm not sure everything is correct. It is not impossible that the partnership has adopted separate plans which allow for naming eligible participants and that each plan has named a single participant. And without seeing the actual allocation amounts and looking at each partner's earned income I don't think it is necessarily over the line as far as a deemed CODA goes. The OP came here looking for confirmation that the 5500-SF's were being filled out properly. They were. *I* know you are just trying to save the OP from big trouble down the road, but based on the fact I would have bet dollars to donuts the OP wouldn't have been able to get the reporting right, and would have lost my bet, I'm willing to believe until proved otherwise that the allocations are correct. Perhaps we can boil the question down to its essential elements so that a call can be placed to the source of his plan documentation to once and for all determine whether there is a problem.

I know this sounds discriminatory, but I think it works. For those paid out folks whose underlying multiplier is less than $X, they get nothing. Everybody else gets what's left. If there is a 10 basis point error then $X will probably fall between $75,000 and $100,000. FWIW

I think the op is dealing with a calendar year 2018 plan.

No.

I am.

The testing comp doesn't need to be either allocation comp.

How can anybody in this day and age have a TPA and a permitted disparity plan?

Ed, you may be right, and I probably should have inquired about the operation of the plan. But the inquiry was regarding the reporting and that looks to be correct. Now, if plan 001 doesn't have eligibility provisions limiting participation to one partner or, in the alternative if it doesn't have a provision allowing for a different allocation percentage (zero being a viable alternative) for each participant, you are right it could be very problematic.

Right on all counts, if I'm reading it correctly. Good job!

I must have missed your question mark. You must have missed my smiley. All good, though.

Don't quit your day job! :-)

Not to me. What will be relevant are: (1) Your vested balance on 3/15/2019 (you gave your current vested balance, which will not be used in the 3/15/2019 calculation). (2) The highest outstanding balance in the last 12 months before 3/15/2019 of Loan 1 (you gave the current loan balance, which is not used in the calculation). (3) The highest outstanding balance in the last 12 months before 3/15/2019 of Loan 2 (you gave the current loan balance, which is not used in the calculation). In lieu of (2) and (3) it is possible that you will need: (4) The highest outstanding balance in the last 12 months before 3/15/2019 calculated by looking at both of your loans on each day. Most plans use (4). Some plans use (2) and (3). Recently, the IRS has "clarified" that plans may determine the "maximum loan amounts outstanding in the 12-month period ending on the date a new loan is requested" (listen to the podcast linked in the FAQ, below) more broadly than how the FAQ seems to. If they do that, (that is, use (4) instead of (2) and (3)) then it is possible that the "maximum loan amounts outstanding in the 12-month period ending on the date a new loan is requested" will be higher and the loan amount you can take in a new loan would be even less. I'm reluctant to even estimate the maximum loan you should be entitled to because the amount declines, dollar for dollar to the extent (2) is greater than $10,508 and dollar for dollar to the extent (3) is greater than $15,180 [or, if (4) is in play rather than (2) and (3), dollar for dollar to the extent (4) is greater than $25,688]. But assuming (2) is not greater than $10,508 (a very bad assumption) and that (3) is not greater than $15,180 (another very bad assumption) [or that (4) is not greater than $25,688 (another bad assumption)] and that (1) is no less than $73,870 (yet another very bad assumption) the maximum loan available on 3/15/2019 would be $24,312 using the methodology of http://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/Retirement-Plans-FAQs-regarding-Loans#7. I believe I've posted a spreadsheet that does the calculations. I've lost track of where it is. Maybe somebody else knows. Good luck.

The former. Are you filing electronically? How are you answering Part 1 - A? Would you rather file by hand? Do you have more than $250k in the plans as of 12/31/2018?

No.

You may wish to consider fixing it if the balances in the 401(k), now Roth IRA, are large. As I understand what the IRS has been allowing in these circumstances is to file under VCP with a correction of, get this, I/we "promise not to do it again". With that said, based on what you have written I'm not sure you have anything to fix. Which gets to the issue of cost to correct, because if you are going to formally correct, my advice is that you hire somebody in the industry to go over the details to make sure there is something to correct. Then you have to consider the fees with the VCP filing and finally, if the IRS starts demanding more than a mea culpa, whatever pound of flesh that results in, as well. Good luck!

To help us answer your question, please detail the dates and amounts contributed on those dates for the EE ($24,000) and ER ($15,500) that you are concerned with. Also, normally one's 2017 tax return is completed long before today, so if you could describe the timing of when you filed your tax return for 2017 that might also be helpful.

It isn't an issue. You can have 10 of 'em! You probably put 001 and 002 into your documents when it should have been 003 and 002. No big deal, those are just note items anyway.

Agreed.

As far as dispiary factots over age 70 I have two different systems on my computer which use the factots at age 70 for all ages 70 and above. No, I won't hang them out to dry by disclosing who they are....

Google is one quick witted AI machine: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=dispiary+factots

LOL. Yes, it was clear from context for those who already are at Ph.D. level or above.