Larry Starr

As usual, we don't get the full story. ALL POSTERS OF MESSAGES: Please give the full story and you will get the best answers the quickest. What's missing here? What the employer trying to accomplish! Is he trying to eliminate any employees who have already met the requirements, or just apply it to future eligibles. My guess is the latter. Let's make that assumption for this query. Since we are past the 7/1 quarterly entry date and we are prior to the 10/1 entry date, there is no reason why this can't be amended as of today (right up until 9/30) to change to semi annual entry dates, and anyone who would have entered 10/1 will have to wait until 1/1/19 IF THEY ARE STILL HERE.

If you get a DRO and the plan says it is a QDRO and you implement it as such, you have done exactly what you have to do. However, if you have not implemented and you get both the QDRO and the divorce order, I call the attorney who drafted it and inform them of what I see as the problem and gently suggest they might want to re-look at it in order to avoid a case of malpractice. Generally, I draft the QDRO's for 98% of my cases and I avoid this issue by making sure the order (which is supplied to one of the atty's to get into the court) matches the divorce decree. It is criminal how often domestic law atty's who think they know what they are doing and draft their own orders do a royal screw up!

Apply for a new one.

Ummm..... what software are you using? Maybe it's just that you need some help on setting the appropriate settings. As far as I know, all the majors now work just fine. Why not ask for the help you seem to need: "How do I make X software do the split when this is the situation (explain why it isn't working)". For example we can make Relius do the calc in all situations.

Tom gave you the tech answers which are correct. The easy answer is "the law doesn't allow you to do what you suggest". PERIOD.

They made it in time. Unrestricted submission is all that is required. It is not required that the funds hit the account by the due date.

No, they are not. Check the Erisa Outline Book for the specifics.

This is an easy one and Bill has given you the track to run on. You tell them what to do; that's why they came to you. If they don't take your advice, they are NOT your client and you say thank, but no thanks. It is just that simple.

look at the responses above; there are links to the two parts of the outline so you can download.

First of all, he shouldn't have a W-2; if he'a a partner, IRS says he can't also be a W-2 employee (unless it occurred BEFORE he became a partner). There is citation for this. But, if there is a W-2 and a K-1, they get aggregated (with the K-1 income being adjusted as appropriate for net SE income).

I can't say your question is any less confusing. What exactly is going on and what is your issue? Please flesh out the issue if you want a responsible answer.

Then you've seen 5500s that are just plain wrong.

And for what it's worth, we NEVER use irrevocable waivers for this purposes. A simple amendment that excludes these HCEs from the plan accomplishes the same thing and is reversible which often becomes an issue.

You are right and the client is an idiot. We would send a sign off letter telling him he is on his own because he didn't do what we told him to do. Tell him to let the acct do the 5500. More than likely, the client will come back and beg to be taken back on and do what is right. If he does, great, take him back. And if he doesn't, it isn't your problem.

Start with that same old questions: what does your plan document say?

You need to start threatening the bank with legal action and insist that they bring in their corporate legal. The plan is ALWAYS a plan of the employer. The employer has the right to change trustees. The prior owner is NOT the employer because the employee bought the stock. A corporate resolution changing the trustee and adopted by the corp is all that is needed. Threaten them with violation of ERISA rights. The bank is AN IDIOT (and sadly, that too often is the case!!!). Larry.

Thanks for some sanity! AMEN!!!!

For what it's worth, we NEVER use comp from entry date and never have in 40 years!

Ed I won't tell you it's not discriminatory. I will tell you it's not IMPERMISSIBLE discrimination! Agreed, in this case using a one year SAED will bring him in so you don't have to go with the alternative.

OK; well the answer is that it's ABSOLUTELY CLEAR! He CAN'T "refuse" it when he was already sent it. There is no argument for anything else; period. It's taxable. Order a replacement check and that's the end of it. No only it is not right, it CAN"T be done BECAUSE it isn't right!

You're going to file the form; it's going to show a deficiency in the computers of 21 cents. Why play games? Send the check for the 21 cents. Or would you rather have to deal with corresponde where the postage alone will be more expensive????.

I'm answering without the ability to confirm since I'm out of the country. With that adviso, if the plan is effective 1/1 and the plan year is a 12 month period, then why would you prorate anything? My answer is NO.

Yes, the IRS has a process for getting an incorrect withholding back, and we have done it when necessary.. But this does not rise to that level. Are you disagreeing? I'm not sure. I think this situation is clear, no?

They automatically issue it. The cost of "checking" is greater than the risk of coverage combined with the risk of an actual loss having to be covered (multiply the two together!). It's a business decision, and, sadly, the correct one.

-11g is not limited in what it can be used for.