Leaderboard
Popular Content
Showing content with the highest reputation on 02/01/2016 in all forums
-
I'm more than curious if that is what the document really says. unless it was a QACA in which case you could actually generate forfeitures, I would have thought the incorrect match is tossed into suspense and used to reduce future safe harbor (it was after all 100% vested when made inadvertently to the plan.) I'd argue it is a correction under EPCRS, you are putting the plan in a position it should have been if the error hadn't occurred.1 point
-
It is a good thing. Now if they would just get off their high horse about applying forfs to SH contributions we would have something.1 point
-
I don't believe you can file an EZ for 2015 as the Plan had a non-owner participant at some point in 2015.1 point
This leaderboard is set to New York/GMT-05:00