Jim Chad

How are people making certain that all distributions of Roth are coded correctly? I am starting to do 1099's and I do not see a good way of catching all of these? Also, does anyone know where I can get a good explanation of how to do the 1099's for and ADP correction where all deferral that year was Roth?

FWIW We use the IRS program any time the envelope comes back "undeleiverable". If this happens we use the internet and the IRS forwarding program.

How are people making certain that all distributions of Roth are coded correctly? I am starting to do 1099's and I do not see a good way of catching all of these? Also, does anyone know where I can get a good explanation of how to do the 1099's for and ADP correction where all deferral that year was Roth?

Austin: I have found it a major convenience to be able to "represent" when dealing with screwed up 945 deposits. FWIW 6 of them this year. 2 of them mistakes on the part of the IRS.

I don't think there will be much of a protest. From what I have seen, "us TEA Partiers" tend to use the term "cut spending" rather than "fiscal responsibility". Because if we used "fiscal Responsibility" people might twist that into an excuse to raise taxes.

The 11% will satisfy gateway and top heavy, Probably. How old are the NHCE's? Maybe you want to amend to a triple stacked match for next year.

Would the answer be based on common ownership? Anyone?

I was not able to find such a reference this summer. But in the ERISA Outline, I did find how to handle the coverage and discrimination testing when an employer has 2 or more Plans. That was good enough for me.

FWIW I agree they are elective deferrals.

I want to bring this thread back to the top so here is my guess. I think you would test all Participants with less than 5 years, Plan A vs. Plan B. and I would also GUESS that it would be right to exclude Plan C people. What do others think?

I have RA on a stand alone PC and I loaded 16.0 on Monday. No problems yet, at all.

The short answer is the Employer payments need to be received at the investment company by the due date of the employer tax return, counting extensions. Section 404 of the IRC

I haven't found a way around this either. But I do want to comment on EFast 2 customer support. They have been TERRIFIC! They have been there when I called (no significant hold time), very nice and very knowledgeable.

Maybe, yes. Depending on any other connections between businesses, owners or relatives. There is one "business relationship" that has no common ownership requirement. This is not simple. The best source I know to help you figure this out is a book called "Who's the employer?" by Derrin Watson

FWIW I believe the answer right now is no. I also think there will be a requirement next year.

FWIW I believe the answer is no. But if they pay a bill the employer would have paid the end result is the same.

Nice report, Tom. Thanks for sharing it.

FWIW I think it would get lost in gains and losses or maybe it is called other income.

FWIW I would guess that $82,000 is taxable in 2009. But I have no reg to quote. It is just my guess. This might be a great time to call the VCP people and talk about this case anonymously.

FWIW. I cannot see any legal way to ignore terminated employees from a true up. SH cannot have a last day requirement.

Does anyone see a problem with having a match of 125 cents on the dollar counting deferrals up to 5% of pay? If someone defers 5% they will receive a match of 6.25%.

Would a triple stacked match solve this problem?

They did not change the form or where it is sent. As Tom mentioned, it is no longer attached to the 5500.

Tom This report is AWESOME!!!!! Thank you very much for sharing it.

Thanks, Bird. That explains why I have been unable to find anything about a suspension for 2010.