Simple Ira Establishment Documents: Fill & Download for Free

No. SIMPLE IRA’s have an exclusivity provision in the plan document that doesn’t allow for another employer sponsored plan to be in place during the same year. You would have to terminate the SIMPLE (which requires 60 day notice to employees, so by November 2) and establish the 401(k) the following year.

When you are launching a new company, staffing can be your greatest investment, and the decisions you make are likely to have a tremendous impact on the success of your start-up.Other venture-funded startups go into their launch plan with a list of key employees that they need on board to get things rolling.However, many entrepreneurs enter into their new venture without a clear human resources plan. Having a plan doesn’t just mean identifying key employees and decision-makers; that’s easy. It means having an HR strategy in place that is both compliant with the law, and is designed to attract and retain the talent you need to succeed.Before you sign on your first employee you have to have a plan in place. Can you differentiate between a contractor and an employee? Have you established protocols for payroll that are compliant with state and federal tax laws? Have you established general policies for your company that are consistent with your goals, core values, as well as with risk management “best practices”?And what about benefits? Medical insurance is becoming increasingly expensive and important to employees; they will also naturally start asking about things like a 401K plan. Many fledgling employers say to themselves “well, that benefit is a good thing to have so I guess I’ll add that” but the reality is that the old “standard benefits package” has become cost-prohibitive for many start-ups. For example, until your business reaches a certain size, implementing a 401K does not make fiscal sense. The 401K rules are complex, and costly to administer, and in most cases a simple IRA will lower fees and allow employees to put away up $11,500 and you can set it up with an employer match just like a 401K plan ,but without the administrative hassles.Before you write that first offer letter, you have to establish your benefit policies: Who is qualified to receive benefits and what should your benefits package look like? If you don’t have a benefits package in place at the outset – and most start-ups don’t – then how can you make a commitment as to what you will and won’t offer? If you over commit to your first employee, it can cost you a lot of money down the road as you grow bigger. If you under commit, it will be harder to attract premium talent. You also need to determine who is eligible for benefits. Do you want to include part-time employees at what are your policies around that scenario? How do you gauge eligibility? Will you pay benefits during the probation period? If you set the terms out in advance, then you won’t run into concerns or legal challenges later on.Now let’s consider how you want to calculate time off. Do you want to offer paid time off, sick time, paid holidays? What about accumulated vacation time? These trifles don’t seem to matter when you are just starting out, but failure to set a clear policy during the hiring process can lead to legal hassles when an employee leaves and wants to be paid for accumulated vacation time he or she may or may not deserve. You will also need to establish policies regarding medical disability leave, including maternity leave, since creating these “as they arise” can lead to sticky precedent-setting situations down the road. Other time off policies around bereavement and time off for voting should also be decided before you hire your first employee.Then there is the old 1099 versus W-2 trap. Many start-ups hire consultants rather than employees to fulfill key roles to save administrative overhead. After all, a salaried position can result in twice the cost of the actual paycheck when you add in taxes, benefits, and incidentals. So while hiring consultants on a 1099 rather than employees on a W-2 may look attractive, you have to make sure the consultants don’t appear to be full-time employees. Make sure you have contracts that clearly state they are not employees, and make sure your contractors can truly be classified that way according to the state and federal definitions. With the passage of the new health care bill, the definitions defining 1099 supporters are going to become more complex so you have to take extra steps to stay in compliance.Your best defense is to think through your staffing needs in advance, document those needs, and make sure you have protocols and procedures written out in employment contracts, letters of agreement, and employee manuals. Even if you haven’t developed all your HR materials in advance, having a written plan eliminates any guesswork. So if an employee comes to you looking for paid time off or a raise, you have a written protocol you can point to that covers all employees.A little pre-planning with the help of some HR professionals will save you a lot of time and money in the long run. Trying to retrofit policies to compensate for ill-conceived procedures is much harder than just doing it right from the outset.Hope you found an answer to your question.If you like reading this answer, please don't forget to follow our page, Metvy for reading more such answers on Business, Marketing and more value based content.Thank you for reading this :)Source : Start-Ups and Staffing: Better to Plan to Get It Right the First Time

The claim of a shoot to kill policy is very odd given the fact that all British Army members were given and limited to the rules of engagement called the yellow card. Telling them what they were legally allowed to do. The yellow card makes any claims of a shoot to kill official policy somewhat ridiculous(If you genuinely think these rules are shoot to kill you’re just being silly)Rules of Engagement. Now breaking these rules on some occasions can be justified pending of course on context.So as we can see, officially the British Army were telling their soldiers not to shoot unless justified. Now some republicans will claim that they simply should’ve shot to injure but not kill, while a lovely fantasy idea this notion has no reality in military operations. If you are firing against a target, by these laws you must be under the impression that you or someone who it is your duty to protect are in danger of being injured or killed by the target.Now if you shoot someone in the leg they can still fire a handgun, detonate a bomb, or throw a grenade. Same with the arms, meaning that if you are firing you have to fire to stop them from being a danger to you.A quote from a British SAS soldier highlights this issue. “I’ve been asked whether it is possible to shoot to wound a terrorist in order to take him prisoner. The answer is that there is only one way to shoot a person and that is to shoot at the centre of him. You can only shoot a terrorist if your life or the lives of the people it is your duty to protect are in danger. You have to make a split-second decision, and that’s bloody hard to do. However, that is part of our training and we never overreact. We have been involved in numerous operations where people have been shot and wounded and been arrested. You don’t shoot to kill. You don’t shoot to wound. You shoot to save your life or other people’s lives. If the terrorist survives, then his wounds will be treated and he’ll be taken to hospital. Once he is no longer a threat, we cease to take action against him other than to restrain him.”The SAS in Northern Ireland - The British Special Air ServiceMore importantly, there are numerous examples of British forces firing on IRA members and treating them for their wounds afterwards, Francis Hughes being a prime example, he was shot and wounded by the British troops after firing on them when called upon(killing one of the soldiers). He was found the next day and treated for his wounds before being arrested(a strong example of the British Army shooting to kill /sarcasm).Now some examples of this shoot to kill policy were given(not naming any names Andrew). But most of the examples were pathetic at best, The Loughgall ambush was when the SAS had predicted (using bugs and previous patterns of behaviour) that an attack against a police station was due on the 8th of May. The SAS set up an ambush against the attack. But was this a shoot to kill policy? Why couldn’t they just have arrested them?Well firstly the British authorities had not known conclusively who all 8 members of the attack force were, and remember that they predicted this attack partly from previous attack patterns used(they knew several members, but not all of them). Meaning this ambush was prepared because an attack was expected, not certain.The claim by the families is that the van and digger that had been stolen was not reported to the police until after the SAS had already been informed on their radios that the operation was occurring. They use this as evidence that the terrorists were clearly being watched, and so why weren’t they arrested. Even if this is true, observers aren’t normally equipped with the firepower and manpower to initiate an arrest. Secondly this assumes that both the van and the digger were under observation, when in truth only the digger was known to be under observation(at least, the families don’t cite a reliable source which claims otherwise, NO saying “the police report” and giving no way to fact check is not a citation). The van was reported as stolen, and there is no proof that it was followed by the British Army. The SAS actually took up positions when informed by a covert observation post that the digger was being moved, likely meaning that the British authorities weren’t certain that an attack was due to take place until that point(otherwise why were the SAS only taking positions then?), arresting the individuals at this point is effectively asking the British soldiers to commit suicide, as the members are well armed, have an explosive, and have a van which needs to be stopped, plus if any IRA backup vehicles are in the area, arresting them here would simply put you at risk of being surrounded. We are also ignoring the fact that most observation posts tend to contain around 2–4 men(the size of a SAS troop is 4 men).So now that we’ve established that they couldn’t reasonably be arrested at the time of getting the digger, we now need to confirm as whether they could’ve reasonably been arrested during the ambush. Short answer no, no they couldn’t, but hey don’t trust me, the Historical Enquiries Team said as much Shot IRA unit 'fired first at SAS' - BelfastTelegraph.co.uk. To give a bit of a longer rant to explain how silly this is to call it a war crime. The SAS made sure that the station was manned with SAS members instead of RUC members, they didn’t keep the station empty because they knew that the IRA had lookouts who were trying to ascertain as to whether the station had people. Meaning the IRA were going to attack the station knowing that lives were at risk, in fact the operation was nearly aborted by the IRA because they were suspicious of the lack of activity(again implying that they were attacking at a time when people would be there, i.e killing people via the attack).The attack was commenced by the IRA firing their guns at the station while the digger crashed through the fence and the explosive was lit. This behaviour along with the fact that previous attacks similar to this one had killed several members of the RUC meant that the attack was intending to kill the RUC members in the station, and most certainly can be deemed as a threat to life. At this point the SAS sprung the ambush and killed all 8 members of the IRA, the bomb detonated a couple of seconds afterwards, causing significant damage to the police station and injuring 3 members of the security forces inside. There was no safe way to attempt to arrest these people, they were well armed and had shown clear intent to kill members of the RUC. Meaning they had to be shot. A car with 2 civilians had unfortunately run into the ambush zone and immediately attempted to reverse out of the situation, they were wearing boiler suits similar to the IRA attackers that had just launched the bombing attack, the SAS soldiers thought that the car was an IRA backup unit, so they fired on the car. One of the civilians was unfortunately killed and another injured in a very unfortunate situation, however this action was completely justifiable by the SAS as they had reason to believe that 1) this was the IRA and 2) that these members were going to endanger their lives.So to put into perspective for Loughgall, the apparent “war crime” or “shoot to kill” policy, is deeming that it was not right either morally or legally to…. Fire upon a group who had bombed a police station, were armed with heckler and Koch G3 automatic rifles(or to use in purely layman terms “assault rifles”), were actively firing these rifles at police officers who were in the station at that time, and were clearly attempting to kill the police officers as they went off duty(they attacked the station just as it was closing, not hours later when no one would be there, meaning there was clear intent to catch these people as they were leaving the station and therefore would be ill prepared).So apparently it’s a war crime to shoot people doing this? This is proof that the British had no interest in arresting people and would just shoot people as soon as they could? THIS is the example you’ve chosen?! Yeah that’s insane as a position and as I said before, pathetic.What about the example with Operation Flavius? They were unarmed I mean that’s pretty clear evidence that the SAS were a legal death squad going around shooting poor IRA members. WELL not really, Operation Flavius was an operation by the SAS to intercept an attempted bombing of the changing of the guards ceremony in Gibraltar(a common tourist event). British intelligence had gained information that a bombing was due to occur at the event, one way they found out was observing the IRA when they temporarily stopped the ceremony for a couple of weeks, when they restarted it the IRA member suddenly showed interest and was keeping the area under observation. As such they identified the target, when they found out that 3 IRA members were crossing the border, they knew something was about to happen.One of the IRA members later left a car in a spot near the changing of the guards ceremony. A British army officer told them that the device should be treated as suspect, and that it was likely radio controlled. As such the SAS were sent in to arrest the 3 members of the IRA, while the police prepared holding cells for them. Long story short, the IRA members each according to the SAS made suspicious movements, like reaching for their handbag when a gun was put on them or reaching across their chest. Making the SAS believe that they were about to activate a remote detonator. They were shot multiple times to prevent further movement(remember the soldiers think the IRA have a remote detonator, if they keep moving they’re a danger), if you look at the numbers, individually the soldiers didn’t actually fire that many rounds, for example the maximum number of rounds that went into any one member of the IRA from 1 soldier was about 9 rounds(or about 2–3 seconds worth of shooting). Now that may sound like a lot, but if you are shooting someone, you are shooting to stop them from being a danger, or in this case being able to reach and click a remote detonator. What further led to problems for the scumbag, sorry IRA members was that there were 2 soldiers on each member, and each soldier fired about 3–5 rounds into each IRA member. The fact is simple, this doesn’t have the presentation of an execution, an execution would not have both soldiers fire on both targets, whereas a quick trigger reaction would. Seeing how in the SAS you can’t think that someone else will get the target for you, you have to neutralize them yourself.Now the counter claim is that some witnesses saw the SAS shoot them when they were surrendering. Except one of those witnesses retracted their statement, one of the witnesses statement did not add up with the statement that they had given to a tv program. Plus the fact that several witnesses also reported seeing that the SAS had not shot them on the ground, and had not executed them. A further problem to this is even if they were shot on the ground, if they are holding a remote detonator this is acceptable practice, as this is basically the equivalent of holding a grenade, and if that person has their hands clutched then it is far too dangerous not to continue firing. But it is not a shoot to kill policy, because they aren’t firing simply because they don’t want to arrest someone, they are firing because they believe the life of those who they are due to protect is in danger.The car in question was later defused, although it didn’t actually contain a bomb. Eureka I hear the republicans shout, except there was a bomb in Spain which contained over 140 lbs of Semtex and had 200 nails and rounds of ammunition packed into it, with an added 4 timers and 2 detonators for good measure. The intelligence was, for the bare essentials, on the money. The reason for the IRA renting a car was to put a car in the place of where the bomb would eventually be.Another counter to the claim of a shoot to kill policy is why did the SAS practice arrest techniques and why did the police start figuring out how the terrorists were going to be transported to a suitable prison cell if their intention was 3 corpses?So to summarize operation Flavius, the SAS shot dead 3 members of the IRA who did have a 140 lb car bomb packed with over 200 rounds of ammunition. The SAS practiced arrest techniques before the operation, and the police were basically setting up to arrest them, they sent the order for the SAS to attempt to arrest the members in question. All 3 members made suspicious movements which caused the SAS who were under the belief that these people can detonate the bomb remotely to open fire. They fire until the target is no longer moving, since as long as they grabbed a detonator they are a danger to the population at large until their hands are open and they themselves aren’t moving, they must at the very least be unconscious if they’ve grabbed a detonator to prevent danger to the civilian population. All 3 members are killed and a subsequent inquest finds that the SAS were justified, even the European court of human rights found the SAS were justified in their actions(although they deemed the operation poorly handled, meaning mistakes were made, as no evidence of a “shoot to kill” policy was found).This is apparently the “war crime” and “shoot to kill” policy which was initiated by the British government. This is beyond ridiculous to cite as an example of such policy, yes they were unarmed, but not to the SAS’s knowledge. Yes there wasn’t a bomb there, but not to either the authorities or the SAS’s knowledge(plus while there was no bomb there, there was a bomb ready for transport), and other events clearly indicate that they intended to ARREST the terrorists. There’s official documentation which states the exact opposite of a shoot to kill policy, which was given to ALL members of the armed forces sent to Northern Ireland, which they were told they HAD to follow. Adding this with the fact that 300 IRA members were killed in Northern Ireland, over 8000 members were imprisoned. On top of all that, we have to ignore the fact that British soldiers would regularly treat the members of the IRA that they had shot, something which goes directly against this official “shoot to kill” policy. The shoot to kill policy is a massive conspiracy, with unsupported evidence, and the intentional misrepresentation of events to paint the armed forces in a more negative light, in the hope that even if you can’t redeem the IRA, you can drag the British Army down with it.My issue is this, I can never take any claim of “shoot to kill” or “British Army shot X and was unjustified” seriously after seeing these claims. When you claim things like Loughgall or Flavius were either not justified, or were part of a “shoot to kill” policy, suddenly shoot to kill changes from shooting anyone who is part of the organization, to shooting people actively engaging in terrorist acts. The latter is stupidly easy to justify, and the people who did so should not only be condoned but praised for their bravery and selflessness.General citations used if not specifically quoted.Operation Flavius - WikipediaSAS Ambush - LoughgallLoughgall ambush - WikipediaFrancis Hughes - Wikipedia