Jump to content

Mike Preston

Silent Keyboards
  • Posts

    6,547
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    153

Everything posted by Mike Preston

  1. I have seen some pretty aggressive stuff in the wild. Never seen the IRS even raise the issue.
  2. James, just how much time would you take? Isn't this just 1 1099? How much do you think you can save?
  3. Luke, have you ever seen that applied? IRL? I haven't.
  4. Show me where it is not allowed. Or, at the least, something that indicates it may not be allowed. Sheesh, time to find some real work, huh?
  5. You can't find clear guidance on it because you can't do it. I'd be very curious to learn the basis behind "We think".
  6. I think you should start over and give numbers and dates. It doesn't sound like you have all of the facts.
  7. You will need to gather up as much of the documentation you can get your hands on (distribution election packets, Summary Plan Description, Plan Document, signed election forms, a written history of every check you have received from the plan) and then either hire an expert or have a volunteer from the link I sent assigned. Good luck.
  8. A friendly reminder that the IRS considers the combination of "everybody in their own group" and "1 or more participants, whether HCE or not, receiving $0 for the year" invokes the prohibition on using the Average Benefits Test to satisfy coverage. While not typically a problem, if the plan also carves out for eligibility it could become an issue. FWIW
  9. My quick read of the article leads me to the conclusion that the author is narrowly discussing aggregation of 403(b) with 403(b). I don't think the article is saying anything with respect to aggregation of 403(b) with 401(a). I could be reading it wrong.
  10. My fingers say 2015 or later because correcting under SCP by end of 2017 is a hard slog in March of 2018. And I would say there is a possibility that the correction is with respect to an insignificant error and, if so, SCP might still be available. Otherwise, it is VCP or audit lottery.
  11. No, assuming the plan is drafted accordingly.
  12. It is my understanding that they do in California.
  13. Amend through EFAST. Hard to imagine anything could possibly be more efficient.
  14. Effectively untrue. Insurance companies have been known to develop boutique policies. Do a google search on "springing cash value".
  15. Just have to agree to disagree, then. The mere fact that the non-SH plan constitutes an "exclusive" group means that it is more than just merely possible that coverage is being satisfied with reference not to 70% but to the safe-harbor percentage (50% or lower). If so, then it is also possible that the ABT is failed unless all plans are considered. If so, then the non-SH plan satisfies coverage only by including the SH plan in the ABT. That is enough to make the non-SH plan part of the required aggregation group.
  16. What is your point? Are you trying to argue that a plan that satisfies coverage gets a free pass as to non-discrimination?
  17. You also have to aggregate plans that are used to enable a TH plan to satisfy 401(a)(4). This can mean all plans if a plan needs the ABT.
  18. Substitute "increase the likelihood of a reversion".
  19. Perhaps there is a limit to the extent that future works? Maybe a monthly rate published around the first of the month allowing that rate to work for anything projected to the end of the month?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use