RatherBeGolfing

I agree with Mike. Filing the 5558 should not trigger them to ask for the 5500, but why take the chance? Likewise, why file the current year before you are ready to submit your past years if there is even a chance that they will ask for the past years before you are ready to submit them? It isn't going to cost more to include the current year in your DFVC filing, just submit them all at the same time.

Yea but without badly written regs we would lose out on so much fun... So maybe the unedited comment wasn't so far off after all

An average MyRA savings of $1,700 at an average taxpayer cost of $3,500...

Either way is fine. The only time the extension is going to matter is if they get it past the original due date.

As I remember it, you would get a wristband for Thirsty Thursday but you had to get the cheap beers from one particular beer stand... After a while, the 30 minute wait in the cheap beer line got to be to much and many would just get regular priced beers.

I might have gotten my promos mixed up since I lived in Jax at the time... But I am pretty sure Mike was first with Tonya Harding Bat Night. The Suns used to do quarter beer night every now and then which was a crowd pleaser for sure

Most of the crazier promotions are done at the minor league level. As sad as it is, Tonya Harding Bat Night has been done by more than one organization but I believe Mike Veeck was the only one to actually get Tonya Harding to attend and sign the mini bats. This is from the same mind that did a "Vasectomy Night" promotion for a Father's Day game, where one lucky dad won a free vasectomy...

No worries :)

Well I should probably say that I meant favorite as in who the hell came up with this idea rather than what a great idea! But that is what you get from the Veeck's, nothing is off limits

My favorite Bill Veeck and Mike Veeck promotions include "Tonya Harding Bat Night" and "Nobody Night", but "Disco Demolition" clearly had the worst outcome

You need a PPA restatement.

Are there still assets in the plan?

A does not prove B. Just because it comes from a federal prosecutor does NOT mean it is enforceable. For what its worth, the EOB only mentions the 9th as having adopted this position. That doesn't mean that other circuits haven't, but Sal is pretty good about updating things like that. As to the original question, withholding does apply, but there is no penalty for premature distribution. For your reading pleasure, see the 2017 ERISA Outline Book Chapter 3B - Part 2 - Section XI - Part A.

Gotcha thanks. My very limited understanding was that federal court could order garnishment because it would be treated as a tax. But now that I think of it, that would probably be limited to fines ordered by the court since it is payable to the government rather than a third party.

No authority in general, or in the orders you received?

It is times like these when I am so happy that I deleted my facebook back when myspace was still the more popular alternative...

Son was never an employee of dad's practice, he was an IC. So maybe he was a sole prop as an IC and counts that prior service but not prior service at dad's practice...

The line "we don't need no stinkin' badgers" was also used in the 1989 Weird Al Yankovic classic "UHF" Popular line to parody

Are the employees in for sure? That was my first reaction but as more details are coming out, I'm not so sure. Depending on other unknown details, why couldn't son require a year of service? 1. It is an asset sale. 2. Son wants to start a new plan. In an asset sale, the employees have severed employment with dad's company and are now new employees of son's company. He does not have to credit service in dad's company for the new plan in his company.

Pretty much every opinion I have heard or read has said it is NOT preempted. I have talked to many ERISA attorneys who will outline the possible implications of non-compliance and many who take Larry's approach of "who cares, nothing is going to happen". That said, I have never talked to one who can mention a single example where non-compliance has actually become a problem.

Maybe I'm missing something, but since the plan is paying the expenses, shouldn't the fee (or the formula for calculating the fee) have been disclosed ahead of time? Or are we discussing future changes?

Indeed it is

It is worth pointing out that ALL parties to the document are liable for the tax. The state doesn't care who pays it, so if the participant refuses, the plan is still on the hook.

So we have a double whammy He cannot disregard the EEs service just because he didn't own it at the time He cannot count his time as an IC because he wasn't an employee

How about ERISA § 412, 29 C.F.R. § 2580.412-11