RatherBeGolfing

Nothing yet...

There is similar relief for Florida *EDIT The relief I mentioned was for Hurricane Hermine and covered Citrus, Dixie, Hernando, Hillsborough, Leon, Levy, Pasco and Pinellas counties. With the damage in St Johns and Volusia, Matthew relief has to be coming...

Another vote for get an attorney. I know you said you can't afford one, but this is one of those cases where you really have no choice, you need legal representation. Many attorneys will give you a free initial consultation, at the very least you should take advantage of that and see what they say.

Fair point, but as long as the excluded class is reasonable it shouldn't be a problem. Obviously, you wouldn't define the excluded class as "non-citizens" or "French Canadian", but if you can put them in a class that meets bona fide businnes criteria or job classification it is not an issue. We don't know the setting here, but using "visiting professor" rather than "J-Visa Employee" should do the trick. In order to do that, you cannot have a problem with excluding "visiting professors" who are US citizens (assuming that excluding visiting professors would succeed in excluding the entire group of people you wanted to exclude). I agree,it was just an example of non-discriminatory wording.

Fair point, but as long as the excluded class is reasonable it shouldn't be a problem. Obviously, you wouldn't define the excluded class as "non-citizens" or "French Canadian", but if you can put them in a class that meets bona fide businnes criteria or job classification it is not an issue. We don't know the setting here, but using "visiting professor" rather than "J-Visa Employee" should do the trick.

If you have the numbers I don't see why that would be a problem.

Glad to hear you are ok Tom. It was sad to see the images of St Augustine turning into a river last night so I imagine it must have been pretty bad in Jax as well.

Im on the DOL committee for ASPPA GAC, I have forwarded this issue to my group to see if is regional and luck of the draw or if it is part of a bigger enforcement initiative. I will let you guys know what I find out. J

I am assuming (which is never a good thing) that these used the DOL calculator to figure out the lost earnings but did not file VFCP. I know the Philly office has done this before. Their position is that you are not allowed to use the calculator unless you file VFCP. If you use it and correct outside VFCP, they may not consider it corrected. They may be trying to bring this issue back up though other regional offices ugh

Yes. Certain non citizens working in the US do not have to pay SS and Medicare taxes. You can be a non-resident for immigration purposes but a resident for federal tax purposes though, in that case, you are not exempt from SS and Medicare taxes.

If it is a recent hire, chances are good that she is a non-resident. However, she gets W-2 comp so she probably has US source of income. The exceptions for US income in §861(a)(3) are very narrow and on a J-Visa I Im very confident that it will not qualify for an exception. She is not excluded. Remember, the exclusion only applies if: “an employee who is not a U.S. citizen, and who is a nonresident alien for federal tax purposes and who receives no U.S. source income (as defined in IRC §§861(a)(3) and 911(d)(2)) from the employer.” (Source: EOB Ch 8, Part B, Section 3, #4) The non-resident alien exclusion is really only an issue that should come up in a company with foreign operations. Hope that helps. J

Unfortunately, the person being unpaid now (who is supposed to be forced out) probably means that they are missing. When the person is missing, it can easily happen that they are not paid out before filing for Social Security. If, after this year, they are found/forced out, they are just reported again with a "D". I know that is the way it's supposed to work. But I've found that reporting the distribution does not necessarily prevent the SSA from telling the participant they still have money in the plan. You are correct, the SSA is a mess when it comes to telling people that they have assets in an old plan, even when you report them as distributed. But government shortcomings doesn't change our duty to report. It is just a risky position for a TPA to take when it is clearly not supported by rules or regs. In theory, each client they do this for could be on the hook for $5,000 in penalties per return.

Good luck Tom! We got through it with mostly heavy winds here in Tampa, still strong gusts and some rain down here. I hope you get to keep power, I lost it for over 4 weeks when I lived in Jax and the storms went through in 2004. Stay safe Jim

Dang it, no hills here in Florida to run to :/ Luckily, we are not supposed to get the worst of it here in Tampa but you never know with these things,.

Yes, and you can add a fixed match to that (still not matching deferrals in excess of 6%), max out your HCEs, and still be exempt from top heavy

Great, now I have to wipe coffee off my monitor...

You are absolutely correct, you cannot rely on the 80-120 rule for a first year plan because the rule allows you to CONTINUE to file as a small plan. It may be time to reconsider the "auditor" in this case...

If it is a non-EZ plan and you have participants, there is no exemption to the filing requirement simply because you had no contributions / no assets. File the 5500 and move on.

Options are treated as ownership Not sure about RSUs. When you say unvested, is it just a time thing or other restrictions on the option?

If the QDRO is silent on fees, follow your service agreement. In my opinion, it would be improper to charge the the alternate payee unless authorized in the QDRO. As a side note, my service agreement takes this a step further. Even if the QDRO stipulates that the fee should be split, I can collect from the plan sponsor in the event of non-payment from the third party.

I agree, there is nothing to support an exemption from the 8955-SSA based on account balance. Id love to hear their justification though.

Personally, I would be aggressive and use a plan year of 1/1/16. As far as I know, there is nothing that expressly prohibits the practice, and there are at least informal comments made by the IRS to indicate that it would be ok (the aforementioned 1997 comments) . Draft your plan document to use a limitation year of 12 months ending on the last day of the plan year rather than using the plan year as the limitation year if the initial plan year is short. This way you have a 1/1/16-12/31/16 limitation year, and no proration is needed. From Sal's ERISA Outline Book:

So much for a relaxing weekend...

I understand not wanting to use revenue sharing, but do they have a problem with keeping the fees set by using basis points? I just set up a plan last week though a major RK with all non-revenue sharing funds. The still state their fee as a matter of basis points, and are paid by plan funds, just not via revenue sharing.

I would think so. Most documents I have read include some type of language giving the plan discretion. So as a matter of plan policy you should be able to refuse 60-day rollovers as long as you are consistent. for example, my document states: