RatherBeGolfing

Yep. It really shouldn't be more complicated than that. The fact that the CPA made a mistake on the sponsor's return doesn't taint the contributions, the return just has to be amended to show the correct contribution.

Or just don't let them invest in stuff that will become an issue

I'm not sure I see discretion here (or authority and control). You have no discretion over how the funds are invested, the investments are made per the sponsors investment directive. You also have no discretion over when the funds are invested since the service agreement gives you a 4 day turnaround between deposit and investment. That is an administrative delay, not a judgment call by the actuary. I agree this seems like a waste of time for an actuary.

$37,500 contributed in 2016, why not simply amend the 2015 return to be within both limits and count the remainder as a current year contribution deducted in 2016? Why insist on calling it a 2015 annual addition or excess?

That is interesting, especially since they now want to encourage more people to fully correct through VFCP... I deal primarily with the Atlanta office, and haven't had any issues. I often hear that the Philly office is one of the tougher ones to deal with so the fact that you have had good experiences is nice to hear.

Im pretty sure it stems from PTE 2002-51. Note that for the PTE, simply depositing the amount as earnings is not enough, you also need to go through VFCP. PTE 2002-51 (my emphasis in bold)

Wow. I have never had any issues with VFCP for late deposits other than taking forever. Could just be luck of the draw though. Out of curiosity, which regional office handled the filings?

What were they for?

Is the upgrade part of the repair?

50-49 vote in favor of resolution of disapproval. House has already voted in favor, the bill will now go to President Trump to sign into law.

If the excise tax is small enough (less than $100), you can pay the excise to the participants as part of the VFCP filing. You still have to prepare to the 5330 you would have submitted to the IRS and submit it to the DOL with the VFCP filing.

B

I think that is a fair approach as long as loan docs allow for payments outside of the amortization schedule.

A few thoughts for this discussion.. If an account has both vested and unvested balances at the time the AB is calculated for RMD purposes, the RMD would be calculated on the total balance but only paid from the vested balance. If there is not enough in the vested portion to pay the full RMD, the remainder is "rolled" to the following years distribution. Could you apply the same principles here? Calculate the RMD using a balance of $46,000, if the RMD exceeds the $1,000 available funds, add the remainder to the next years RMD which will have more cash available after a year of loan payments.

I agree with you on asset sale vs stock sale above. In OPs case where a majority owner (60%) simply buys out the minority owner to become 100% owner, I would not expect many changes at all, if any.

I was expecting someone not connected to the current plan to be the one making that recommendation. I'm more concerned that the current provider is telling you to terminate and start over... What don't they want you too find out?

or it is not treated as hyper manual because of mapping and then the doo-doo hits the fan down the road Shouldn't be an issue to get it through VCP with or without an earlier document that allowed Roth, it just isn't something you can self correct.

Well 33.33% is a great return on investment

Yea, but its $700 if you invest $1,000,000...

While I have heard of individual cases where the DOL has accepted that no audit will be done, it is very rare, and it takes a lot of negotiation. They are not going to accept this at face value, nor should they. A local auditor I know has a plan where the sponsor is no longer in business and the principals are in jail for fraud. Last I time I spoke to the CPA handling the case the DOL is still expecting an audit to be done...

Agreed. If you are going to fix it, fix it all with one low user fee. I believe late EZ filings are also subject to a cap. The consulting fee for preparing 27 years of admin/returns might not be so low though...

And those items would easily be accounted for when reconciling the trust and return.

What Mike said. Also, try searching through EFAST rather than a third party EFAST 5500 Search

That sounds reasonable. It should have been paid by the employer, but was paid by the employee, so making a QNEC in that amount to would make the participant whole (more than whole..) At least that is what I get from reading 6.07(1). It would make less sense for the employer to only be on the hook for the withholding if other assets were also distributed, since the failure has to do with when the loan was taxable...

Thanks, makes a lot more sense now. It seems to me that the requirement for the Employer to pay the applicable income tax would be there regardless of whether the 20% withholding was required at the time of the distribution since that is connected to the failure that made the loan taxable in the year of correction rather than the year of default. Basically, the employer is on the hook for the applicable income taxes regardless of whether additional distributions were made which made the entire amount (loan and non loan assets) subject to 20% withholding. The controlling factor is that the loan assets are taxable in the year of correction rather than the year of default. Interesting fact pattern...