User talk:Marty1970
From TaxAlmanac
This page is where you can leave a message for Marty1970. Marty1970 will be notified of messages the next time they access TaxAlmanac.
Please make sure to sign your message by adding four tildes: ~~~~ at the end of your message.
If you are actually Marty1970, this is your page. Feel free to edit your discussion page to add or remove anything you'd like.
Contents |
controlled group 5500
Marty, thanks for responding to my post a few days ago about the late filing penalty. I am so confused by the controlled group definition when it comes to family atrribution...here's this particular situation, wondering if you could take a look. Is this a controlled group?
husband owns 100% corp 1
husband owns 32% corp 2
wife owns 32% corp 2
adult children (2 of them) own 18% each of corp 2
is this a controlled group?
corp 1 has the retirement plan, husband is the only participant, corp 2 never participated any way in the plan. Total plan assets are 120K, they have been filing 5500 not 5500EZ.
much obliged in advance! LisaLisasig 10:49, 17 March 2009 (CDT)
Marty, Thanks again for your response to the 401(k) loan repayment issue. I took a look at your website. Excellent!!! I took a chance posting here since no one on my state society listserve seemed to have an answer. I've bookmarked your site for future consultation possibilities. In the meantime I will research the reference materials you suggested.
Thank you for the info. Marty. I did research the site you provided and came up with numerous hits on Tribune. None were of the specfic plan my client had his funds in. He was employed for almost 30 years there but has since moved on to an even better job. You are correct, he was offered an annuity, however, in light of the fact he needed to repay the 401(k) loan he took the lump sum. What I had advised him to do last summer was take the hit with the loan as a deemed distribution and let the cash balance plan rollover. I said this knowing the consequences would not be as costly. The way he transacted the distribution he is ending up paying approximately 1k additionally, plus he had to borrow a few thousand to make up for the taxes withheld when they distributed the cash balance plan. I suggested he look into paying the 401(k) and letting it sit until repaid, that was a no go. I also suggested he look into borrowing from the 401(k) after it rolls over, and that was a no. Both suggestions I entirely understood his reasoning. I did tell him he should invest his money and obtain some additional deductions by purchasing a home - he's been renting a townhouse since his divorce several years ago. He has no deductions. He did none of what I recommended. So here we are in April and I know he is upset - he ranted on for several minutes. I am not looking forward to my conversation with him, but I guess that's what I get paid for.
I have bookmarked your site and will keep you in mind for future consult opportunities. I really do appreciate the time you've taken to respond to my dilemna. At least I know I explored every avenue I possibly could to resolve the issue in favor of my client.
Hurricane Ike Distributions
Thank you, Marty. I appreciate your thoughts. I'm going to go ahead and try to call the IRS again. I will post the results when I find out. (Hopefully will find out:)) I hope this client is able to at least avoid the penalty as the Galveston coast was devestated.
Thank you, again.
Nancy.
Thanks again Marty regarding the 5500 question.
Sterncpa 12:58, 26 August 2009 (CDT)
John Sterncpa
Personal question
Not sure if you have any insight, but I applied to be a Revenue Agent with the IRS at the end of May. 1 month later, I got an email that my qualifications were a superior match, but that was the end of June and I have heard nothing. I called and emailed but got no response. I would love to get out of public and work at the Service. I'm strongly opposed to tax cheats and think I would make a great agent. Should I give up or do you know if this is standard procedure?
Thank you!
I just added a note to RP09-27 (and 09-47) referring to 08-50. Also added a link to your post; hope that's okay. Thanks for making sure I wasn't leading somebody down the wrong path.
Trillium 12:22, 3 November 2009 (CST)


