All Activity

If so, is there a stock report I can run? Do I ahve to get my backend team ro create a crystal report for this? More questions: I think maybe I'm asking if there is a rate of return report that can be run with ad hoc dates? Could it be run on a plan-wide level but with participant detail? The accounts are daily-valued in the Relius ecosystem.

Is the opt-out credit offered to all employees who waive (and the others just declined by enrolling in the health plan instead)? Or is the opt-out credit offered to only this one HCE to waive? If it's the former, it's probably fine. If it's the latter, it probably violates the uniform election rule.

A small employer offers only fully insured medical insurance to its employees and employees pay their share of the cost of coverage through a cafeteria plan. One (and only one) highly compensated employee is provided with additional cash compensation for opting out of the medical coverage. Does this violate the benefits portion of the cafeteria plan nondiscrimination tests? If so, what is the consequence to the one HCE? Thanks.

There are 2 Corps in the controlled group. Employees of both Corporations receive union and non-union income. The W-2 they receive each year includes both and we back out the union comp for calculation of the SHM.

Dude, congratulations!!! You have taken the time and thought to make more than 6,700 posts to these message boards, over more than 24 years. What a helpful and loving contribution you have made to your peers, the employee benefits industry, and hence to plan participants and plan sponsors all over the country! Unfortunately, your request for retirement is denied. (The fine print is in the Terms of Service, the plan documents, or somewhere.)

LOL, all of those designations mean nothing compared to my true claim to fame - International Man of Mystery! Though if you do seek an ERISA attorney, I know a good one! Here is a little more color. Assume a day care center is called Day Care I, LLC. Day Care I, LLC is owned by Susan 100%. Susan owns 51% of Day Care II, LLC and Day Care III LLC and the manager of those facilities own 49%, respectively (two different people). They have one website, DayCare.com. All three locations are listed and co-branded. Taking the position that this is an Affiliated Service Group would be very conservative and reasonable based on my position that a playscape is not a material income producing factor for a Day Care center. Having one 401k for all three and running one ADP test, I just don't see how that could be challenged. If you want to take the other position, I strongly endorse one Peter Gulia to do an analysis of the facts and circumstances to see if it can be defended. For example, maybe Susan wants a SH Match 401(k) for her employees in Day Care I and knows it would never pass coverage taking into account Day Care II and Day Care III (the other owners do not want to spend the money). That could be a reason to investigate that position. But as a TPA, I would not endorse administering that way without a "Peter Guiia" letter in the file approving it. Note: I did not look up the ASG rules here, but I'm pretty sure because they are not professional service entities, the entity type stuff is not an issue. My example is based solely on the affiliation and common ownership. I'll note the original question made no reference to whether there was an affiliation, but I assume the question would not have been asked otherwise.

I have made the (not all all difficult) decision to retire at the end of this year. I have agreed to work a couple of days a week during the early part of next year to help out my employer while they hire a replacement, but it's a limited engagement. I'll be lurking on these boards for a while yet. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank Dave and Lois for providing this magnificent resource - it has been a tremendous asset! I'd also like to thank all of you folks, past and present, for the invaluable assistance you have given to me over the years. I've certainly taken more than I've given, and your time, generosity, and expertise is appreciated more than you can ever know. It's not just the technical expertise, but the sounding board for discussions, sometimes griping (misery loves company) and humor in the face of statutory and regulatory foolishness that makes this such a great community. I wish you all the best in your future endeavors (I'm trying hard not to gloat) as you continue in this business, and I hope you all have a great Holiday season! Take care, and again, a heartfelt thanks!!!

Or a letter from a certified public accountant who is eligible to practice before the IRS.

Are both amounts paid by the same common-law employer? Or does the business divide union and nonunion jobs between two or more companies?

Tangentially related, perhaps: my understanding that a housing allowance paid is not counted for 415 compensation purposes and a deferral cannot be withheld from such a payment (it’s already not subject to income tax). Deferrals are withheld from income. My preference is to have the section 107 “minister of the gospel” elect a fixed dollar deferral amount. And because the eventual retirement payment from the plan can also be counted as housing allowance (up to the limits allowed) and thus not subject to income tax, perhaps they be especially careful about electing Roth, as that could result in paying unnecessary income taxes.

for July Business Services (Remote / Waco TX)View the full text of this job opportunity

Plan Sponsor has non-union and union compensated employees. Union compensation is excluded from the plan. One of the employees will have W-2 FICA wages of about $70,000 in non-union compensation for 2025 and W-2 FICA wages in union compensation of about $125,000 for 2025. Is the union compensation included to determine if the employee's compensation is over $150,000 for Roth catch up for 2026?

Absolultely. When you compare a day care with a machine shop or Walmart, there are stark differences. It would be quite dangerous to argue a day care is not a service business. They might have a huge playscape that they paid a lot for, but is that playscape a material income producing factor? I don't think so... Plus to me it seems like the danger lies in assuming NOT a service business. To err on the side of caution means concluding it IS a service business. I personally would not assume it was not a service business wihtout a letter from an attorney.

for Ameritas (Remote)View the full text of this job opportunity

If more than one interpretation could be a reasonable interpretation, consider writing an explanation of each plausible interpretation—and the advantages, disadvantages, and risks of each—so your client can make an informed decision about which interpretation it will use. Or, doing the work to research and write an explanation might help you refine your thinking, with one interpretation becoming clearer or stronger, and another interpretation seeming weaker.

“This is exactly the reverse of what Congress was trying to accomplish.” But how do we know that what Congress sought to accomplish is something different than what the enacted text provides? Among many challenges in interpreting recent years’ tax legislation is that there often is no committee report that describes the text Congress enacted.

I have had audits in the past, never this long. I am aware of the personnel changes at PBGC, especially with legal department, so nothing to do but wait. Thank you for your input.

For more than a few church employers, neglecting or miscounting a § 107 parsonage allowance is an error. Might the minister too have believed her specified deferral percentage would apply only to her pay other than the parsonage allowance? If so, might the parties reform their salary-reduction agreement or the participant’s elective-deferral instruction to provide what the minister would have requested had both the employer and the minister known that the plan’s definition of compensation includes a parsonage allowance? Had the minister known, she might have elected a lower percentage of the higher compensation. If so, might both parties ratify what happened as a reasonable approximation of what such a reformed agreement provided? Consider that the minister’s acceptance of pay, and of wage reports, with no objection might support a ratification. This is not advice to anyone.

@Peter Gulia The plan's definition of compensation for the purpose of calculating contributions based on a percentage includes housing allowance. Because the employer did not include the pastor's housing allowance as part of his comp, the calculation resulted in a much lower contribution.

Similar to most government agencies, PBGC has had staffing cuts. If the plan has not received a letter saying the audit is closed, then it is still ongoing. PBGC auditors communicate via email, so you can always email the auditor and ask for a status update. I have seen audits take up to 2 years to complete.

Plan granted SARs with exercise price below FMV. Grant was in 2020, vested in 2021, 2022, and 2023. No rights have been exercised. Notice 2008-113 provides for correction only if correction is made in year of grant or by end of year following year of grant. If no rights have been exercised, is it possible to still use 2008-113? Also, now that we're in 409A land, what if the SAR grant satisfies all the requirements of 409A, meaning (1) specifies number of SARs granted (2) specifies exercise period (5 years from vesting date) (3) specifies exercise price. Or, is this not sufficient since there is no specific exercise date, only an exercise period - 5 years from vesting. Do we still have income at vesting? Or is this ok if otherwise satisfies section 409A requirements?

You’re likely right that, for a church plan with 700 participating employers, it seems unlikely the convening plan sponsor (or the plan trustees or the plan administrator, if either has a power or other authority) would amend the plan because one or a few of the 700 misapplied an otherwise satisfactory definition of compensation. About what correction to pursue, other BenefitsLink neighbors know much more than I know about how to point you to a fitting or defensible correction. Just curious, which element of compensation did a participating employer neglect to count in its measure of compensation on which to apply a deferral percentage?

Background: 403(b)(9) non-electing church plan Multiple employer plan The plan (not the 700 individual participating employers) sets the definition of compensation when it comes to calculating contributions based on a percentage. This one employer used the wrong definition of comp and consequently shorted deferral contributions for the employee since 2021 (yikes) I am unsure what correction method is appropriate and didn't find anything specific in Rev. Proc. 2021-30. I also read a page on the IRS website that states the plan can amend the definition of compensation, but that does not seem reasonable with a multiple employer plan where there is one definition for all employers to follow. How does the employer fix this? Can the employer provide an employer contribution for 50% of missed deferral portion? Is there something clear cut I am missing? TIA for your responses.

for NPPG (Remote / Shrewsbury NJ)View the full text of this job opportunity

I was reading through the IRS Cost-Of-living changes and thought the exact same thing!