Beemer

Registered
 View profile
  • Content count

    99
  • Joined

  • Last visited

 See their activity

Beemer last won the day on October 29 2016

Beemer had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Beemer

  • Rank
    Registered User

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  1. I understand that I need to consider universal availability. However, the TIAA-CREF prototype for 403(b) plans has the 3 usual base compensation options and the current selection is W-2 compensation. Are you saying that there may be an issue with using this prototype?
  2. So, if you have employees who reside outside of the U.S., you should elect 415 safe-harbor compensation in the plan document rather than W-2 wages in the adoption agreement? Would that take care of the issue?
  3. She wouldn't be eligible for the employer contribution though, would she? Just the 403(b) deferral?
  4. Even though the adoption agreement defines compensation as "W-2 wages - Compensation is defined as information required to be reported under Code Sections 6041 and 6051, and 6052 (Wages, tips and other compensation as reported on Form W-2)." ? The definition seems to emphasize how this is reported.
  5. The U.S. employer reports her income on a Canadian Form T4. Does that make a difference?
  6. An employer has a 403(b) plan and an employer contribution plan. A former employee and participant has been rehired. This employee has relocated and now lives in Ontario, Canada. She has dual citizenship, but lives and works from her home in Canada. She is the only Canadian employee. The plans defined compensation as W-2 compensation, but there is no non-resident alien exclusion. She does not receive a W-2. Am I correct in thinking that 1) She cannot defer in the 403(b) plan or receive a contribution in the employer contribution plan as she has no W-2 compensation 2) She should be included in participant counts as an active participant, testing, etc. 3) They could increase her compensation so that she could contribute to the Canadian RRSP. Thanks for any replies.
  7. OK, thanks!
  8. The sources I was looking at refer to an existing plan, not necessarily an existing 401(k) plan, which is why I was considering two plans. This would not be the first plan year, but rather, the first plan year with a 401(k) provision. I also don't think getting this in place by 1/1 would be easy as we would need to schedule employee meetings, etc. The plan is currently trustee directed and the sponsor wants to move to participant directed accounts. (I should have mentioned that before).
  9. I have a client with a profit sharing plan who indicated today that they were interested in a safe harbor match 201k in 2017. They understand that this in late in the year and thought they might be interested in a traditional 401k for 3 months followed by a safe harbor match after April 1st. The plan does not currently allow 401k contributions. I believe my options are: 1) Suggesting they add a 401k with a safe harbor match provision to the plan effective 2018, with amending and notices out next November. 2) Add a traditional 401k feature effective sometime in 2017, and changing it to a safe harbor plan in 2018. 3) Have 2 plans. Don't add the 401k to the existing PSP, but add a new plan, possibly with a short year. Am I missing any options?
  10. If the participant pays but not from their account, is that direct compensation that would be reported on a Schedule C?
  11. I believe the plan sponsor would be alright with the fee paid at the same time as the first loan payment. I suppose if the employee terminated immediately after receiving the loan, then they would not make any loan payments or pay the fee. I could put in the loan agreement that the fee would be paid at the same time as the first payment. Maybe asking the participant to write a check to the plan sponsor would work better.
  12. If the loan repayments are by payroll deduction, why do you think the fee processing would add another 2-3 weeks? (I am not opposed to paying the fees directly out of the participants accounts, but the plan sponsor is asking about payroll deduction). And if they require a $1,000 minimum balance for a loan, and you need $75 from payroll to process the loan, some participants may not be eligible for a loan, but that would not make this discriminatory, would it?
  13. A plan sponsor wants to start charging participants $75 to initiate a loan. They want the participants to pay the $75 by payroll deduction and forward that to the TPA. Are there any issues with paying the fee by payroll deduction rather deducting the fee from the account? Thank you for any replies.