Tom Poje

 View profile
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 See their activity

Tom Poje last won the day on March 13

Tom Poje had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

157 Excellent

About Tom Poje

  • Rank
    Registered User

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

345 profile views
  1. I'm not sure why a change of ownership like that would necessitate a new plan but as I recall, yes, because of the successor plan rule no one could take distributions, but the balances should be able to transfer to the new plan with no problem. otherwise people would terminate a plan, get their $ out and then start a new plan whenever they felt like it, avoiding the distribution rules relating to deferrals
  2. I know little of Davis-Bacon plans, however the write-up by these folks would seem to indicate for Davis-Bacon you have base pay and fringe benefit, and it's the fringe benefit that can be put into the plan. therefore, just by the nature of the beast I'd think that fringe benefit would apply to all workers, thus it wouldn't be a match contribution they also have a list of contributions which mentions safe harbor nonelective contributions but no mention of "You could also apply this to safe harbor match":
  3. well, I guess for accountants opinion attachment you could attach a note indicating company is bankrupt, sold to liquidation firm, we tried to get one but there is no company that exists now to pay for an audit. . years ago (first year of required 403b filing we attached a note that indicating plan is having independent audit, it is first year for the 403b filing under the new rules, etc. the only thing that happened was the DOL asked for the attachment to be filed as soon as possible. If the plan has more than 100 participants but less than 100 with account balances then you could also indicate if the future rules are passed an audit wouldn't be needed.
  4. reminds me of the Far Side cartoon in which the rat looks into the kitchen cupboard and sees a box of rat poison and says "I don't even know why this is up there" not that I am implying the folks at the IRS are rats, but rather here is a provision that says the employer pays the withholding but they can't tell you why.
  5. I didn't realize that was what had happened. I'm not sure what happens then if you follow those instructions - the participant is 'correct', the withholding has been completed, it is already done. if you toss in an additional amount from the employer at this point that would really botch things up....well, I guess since it is VCP you can always ask the friendly IRS folks and tell us what they say.
  6. but you said he already took his distributions. Arguably, if you had done it at the same time you should have included more withholding. and if you hadn't have paid the person out you wouldn't tack on withholding, unless that is what the govt expects in all cases if you file this way. I haven't heard that being done, but then, I don't handle that end of things. so maybe someone who has done these things can say what they do. personally I'm not even sure why that provision is in there, because it becomes a windfall for the participant, which makes no sense. I understand it if there are additional tax penalties, but EPCRS is clear if it is the sponsor's fault they are responsible for those.
  7. I am guessing in most cases 2 1099s are created because you are talking 2 separate events. 1. if the person took a distribution then 20% was already withhold and that event is done. 2. now a 1099 is issued for the late loan. there is no withholding because there is no assets left. if the distribution hasn't taken place, then the 1099R for the loan is issued, no withholding because no other distribution has been made at this time.
  8. that was what I was taught when I started in the business years ago, well, that was well before safe harbors. I was taught you included money purchase contribution (a plan subject to minimum funding standards) due but not yet made because it was mandatory, so the logic would seem to be the same for safe harbor, though of course they never amended the regs to say that . (If it was the first year of the plan, for whatever reason the regs say you include the profit sharing as well.(the regs say "however in the first year of the plan, the adjustment should reflect any contribution made after the determination date that are allocated as of a date in the first year. the long winded answer (even longer than some of my sad humor I've posted) is below. it should be remembered that IRS responses to such Q and As do not necessarily reflect an actual Treasury position. .......... Receivable Contribution and Top Heavy Determination? Is a discretionary profit sharing contribution for the prior plan year that is deposited after the end of the prior plan year included in the top heavy determination for the current plan year? Let’s say we have a calendar year plan, effective several years ago. We are determining the plan's top heavy percentage for the 2002 plan year. The determination date is therefore 12/31/01. The employer makes a contribution in February, 2002, which is allocated and deducted as of 12/31/01. There is a question as to whether this contribution is included in the top heavy determination for the 2002 plan year. The question relates to Q&A T-24 of the 416 regulations, which says that if a plan is not subject to 412, then the account balances are not “adjusted” to reflect a contribution made after the determination date. A. The key phrase here is “account balance”. The participants’ account balances, as of (say) 12/31/01, include the profit sharing contribution that is allocated and deducted for the 12/31/01 plan year end. So the guidance regarding “adjustments” does not apply to the receivable profit sharing contribution; it is already part of the participants’ account balances. The question as to what contributions are considered due on the determination date is determined under §1.416-1, Q&A T-24, which says that it “is generally the amount of any contributions actually made after the valuation date but on or before the determination date”. It then goes on to say that any amounts due under §412 are considered due, even if not made by the determination date. One could take the position that this is a exclusive statement; in other words, if a contribution is NOT due under 412 and is made after the determination date, it is not considered 'due'. However, the answer to the question (T-24), “How is the present value of an accrued benefit determined in a defined contribution plan” is answered, “the sum of (a) the account balance as of the most recent valuation date occurring within a 12-month period ending on the determination date, and (b) an adjustment for contributions...” The term, "the account balance" includes contributions credited to the account of a participant, it does NOT mean only the contributions actually made that have been credited. For example, if a 100% vested participant terminated after the determination date but before the contribution was actually made, the distribution would include that contribution, even though it had not yet been made to the plan. This is because the account balance, as of the last day of the plan year, includes the contribution. So, when the regulation addresses adjusting the account balance for contributions made after the determination date, we must start with the account balance, and then apply the adjustments. Since the account balance includes the receivable profit sharing contribution, the adjustment does not refer to the receivable. The reference to §412 in §1.416-1 is with regard to a waived funding deficiency that is not considered part a the participants' “account balance”, as the term is defined. Q&A T-24 refers to a DC plan with a waived funding deficiency that is being amortized. Such a plan must maintain an “adjusted account balance” (reflecting the amount of the contribution that has not been deposited) which must be maintained until the actual account balance increases to the point where it equals the “adjusted account balance”. It is to this (unadjusted) account balance that the (waived) contribution must be added, since the amortized contribution only becomes a part of the actual account balance as it is paid to the plan. The requirement therefore has the effect of determining top heavy status as though the contribution required under 412 had actually been made. In other words, the “account balance” would not include the waived minimum funding contribution, so an adjustment is required. IRS response: We accept this analysis. 2002 Annual Conference IRS Questions and Answers #49
  9. I don't believe so, that would be sort of like saying, "Can I start a new plan after the end of the year" but very observant to realize plan is going to be top heavy. but check the wording in the basic document. for example FTWilliam has (d) Qualified Matching Contributions. In addition to any Qualified Matching Contributions provided in the Adoption Agreement, the Company in its discretion may make matching contributions designated as Qualified Matching Contributions for the benefit of such Participants and in such manner determined at the discretion of the Company. The Company may determine, in its discretion whether allocations of Qualified Matching Contributions shall be limited to Participants who are credited with at least a certain number of Hours of Service during the Plan Year and/or who remain in the Company's employ on the last day of the Plan Year. Such Qualified Matching Contributions shall be nonforfeitable when made unless attributable to withdrawal rights under an Eligible Automatic Contribution Arrangement or Qualified Automatic Contribution Arrangement and may only be distributed upon the Participant's: (1) attainment of age 59-1/2; or (2) severance from employment, death, or disability I don't think there is anything in that basic document that says "You must fail the ADP to exercise this option" so you might be able to give a QMAC to all and accomplish what you want (though it would be 100% vested) now, the only other possible issue is 1.416-1 T-24 which says when determining end of year balance use the end balance as of 12/31 and contributions that are due as of that date. normally that would be receivables and, at least in the past would not include 'discretionary contributions' though at one ASPPA Conference years ago an IRS agent voiced an opinion you could include other contributions. so, if you told someone you were going to give him a contribution, would that make it 'due' and therefore includable.
  10. the original proposed regs suggested earlier last year would have required reasonable classification for both coverage and nondiscrim, but, at least for the moment, the IRS backed off on that point.
  11. this might be a starting point The ERISA Outline Book has the following note: Chapter 7 section IX part D 1.b.Withholding requirements on deemed distributions. The withholding requirements with respect to deemed distributions are discussed in Treas. Reg. §1.72(p)-1, Q&A-15. As noted in 1.a. above, the deemed distribution is not an eligible rollover distribution, so the 20% mandatory withholding under IRC §3405(c), as described in Section VI of this chapter, does not apply. Are the voluntary withholding rules under IRC §3405 applicable, since the deemed distribution triggers current taxation to the participant? That depends on whether the deemed distribution occurs when the loan is made or on some later date. 1.b.1)Deemed distributions occurring after the loan is made. When a deemed distribution occurs on a date which is after the loan is made, which is usually the case, no withholding is required if the deemed distribution is the only distribution being made at that time, even if the participant has not formally elected to waive withholding. If other cash or property is being distributed at the same time as the deemed distribution, then, unless the participant has waived withholding on the deemed distribution, the required withholding would be taken from the cash or other property, to the extent such other cash or property is sufficient to cover the withholding obligation, as illustrated in the examples involving offsets in Part E.3.b. of this section. Generally, the withholding rate on the deemed distribution would be 10% since it is a nonperiodic distribution that is not eligible for rollover. See IRC §3405(b) and the discussion in Section VI, Part A.3., of this chapter. For example, if the employee is also receiving a distribution with respect to the non-loan portion of his/her account at the same time as the deemed distribution is triggered, any withholding with respect to the deemed distribution would be taken from the additional distribution.
  12. that is my understanding. if there had been a match in prior years (e.g. not last year obviously) then there are some other possibilities. lets say there was a prior match, and the person's match balance is 2000 and he is 60% vested. then his vested balance is 1200 and he could receive all 600 of the match as long as his next statement would be match balance 1400 60% vested but vested balance is 600, which, 600 / 1400 is less than 43%.
  13. does the plan document say you match catch-up?
  14. I have lived here since 1992. since that time, on a few occasions the power has gone off, never more than a day. last year's storm was just bad enough to soften the ground and with wind put a nice lean and slightly uproot my grapefruit tree - maybe about 12 foot tall, but not an overly large tree. that was October, I let the fruit ripen, must have been close to 500 grapefruit and then cut the thing down a few weeks ago (and promptly planted a new tree as soon as they had one in stock). I'd rather have winter and tulips and daffodils and all the other spring beauty in exchange....
  15. Caesar didn't get his done on time and look what happened to him. So beware the Ides of March!