Guest ROB VIDOVICH Posted February 20, 2002 Posted February 20, 2002 COMPANY XYZ HAS THE FOLLOWING FAMILY MEMBERS WITH OWNERSHIP IN THE COMPANY. FAMILY ONE SON OWNS 49% IS PARTICIPANT FATHER IS PARTICIPANT MOTHER IS PARTICIPANT FATHER AND MOTHER ARE CONSIDERED KEY EMPLOYEES DUE TO INDIRECT OWNERSHIP. FAMILY TWO FATHER OWNS 51% IS PARTICIPANT SON 1 IS PARTICIPANT SON 2 IS PARTICIPANT SON 1 AND SON 2 ARE CONSIDERED KEY EMPLOYEES DUE TO INDIRECT OWNERSHIP.... ARE THESE PARTICIPANTS ALL KEY EMPLOYEES OR IS THERE DOUBLE ATTRIBUTION IN EITHER CASE??????
david rigby Posted February 20, 2002 Posted February 20, 2002 Huh? I don't see any double attribution. Are the families related to each other? I'm a retirement actuary. Nothing about my comments is intended or should be construed as investment, tax, legal or accounting advice. Occasionally, but not all the time, it might be reasonable to interpret my comments as actuarial or consulting advice.
Guest ROB VIDOVICH Posted February 20, 2002 Posted February 20, 2002 No the families are not related. I just wanted to be sure that the attribution was correct... I pretty much thought all of these family members were considered key employees... Would this be an example of double attribution: Son 1 owns 100% of Company Mother is participant - Key Employee Due to Family Attribution Son 2 is participant - Not Key Employee Double Attribution.
Guest Mike Kimball Posted February 21, 2002 Posted February 21, 2002 since son 2 is brother of son 1, there is no attribution. son 2 is not a lineal ascendent or descendent of son 1, but the mother is, so ownership is attributed to her. I believe IRC 318 is the reference.
Guest ROB VIDOVICH Posted February 21, 2002 Posted February 21, 2002 Thanks Mike I appreciate your help....
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now