|
JY36 created a topic in 401(k) Plans
Hello, I left the firm where I began my 401k contributions. Upon leaving, I transferred my 401k balance to Wealthfront. I recently deducted the full balance. I have two medical ailments requiring surgery. Am I to contact my ex-firm to determine whether the medical procedures I'm anticipating will be covered under their hardship deduction? Thank you.
|
|
rblum50 created a topic in 401(k) Plans
A 401(k) plan has about 10 participants in it. There is the owner, the owner's wife (who is terminated) are both 100% vested. Both the owner and wife also have individual IRA's. Here's the question: the owner died several months ago. Is there anyway that his 401(k) account balance, either directly or indirectly, can be rolled into his wife's 401(k) account?
|
|
EBECatty created a topic in 401(k) Plans
Would appreciate thoughts on this analysis regarding excluded interests under the controlled group/common control rules. LLC (taxed as partnership) is owned 50/50 by two S corps (S Corp 1 and S Corp 2). S Corp 1 is owned 100% by Individual 1. S Corp 2 is owned 100% by Individual 2. Individuals 1 and 2 are unrelated. Individual 1's spouse is an employee of LLC. The LLC operating agreement has standard terms regarding permitted transfers, right of first refusal, etc. that constitute substantial restrictions on the right of S Corp 1 or S Corp 2 to dispose of LLC interests. For the parent-subsidiary controlled group analysis, the stock exclusion rules apply because each parent S Corp owns at least 50% of the subsidiary LLC. For purposes of whether S Corp 1 and LLC are in a parent-subsidiary controlled group, the stock exclusion rules would result in at most 50% direct ownership (or 0%
ownership if stock deemed owned by Individual 1's spouse is excluded). The other 50% is owned by an unrelated person and is not excluded under any other rule, so S Corp 1 and LLC cannot be in a parent-sub controlled group. However, when looking at S Corp 2 and LLC as a parent-sub group, it seems that S Corp 2 would be deemed to own 100% of the outstanding interests in LLC. S Corp 1's 50% interest in LLC is deemed owned by Individual 1, which is then attributed to Individual 1's spouse, who is an employee of LLC. That 50% interest deemed owned by an employee of LLC is subject to restrictions in favor of LLC, so is excluded, making S Corp 2 the deemed 100% owner of LLC. So the end result is S Corp 1 and LLC are not a parent-sub group, but S Corp 2 and LLC are. It seems odd that the people with more involvement in the ownership and operation of LLC avoid affiliation, but the
person with less involvement is affiliated. I also see the logic that having an employee own the other 50% gives S Corp 2 more "leverage" in the situation, but the employee's ownership is only deemed through another equal co-owner. In any event, would appreciate any thoughts.
|