Leaderboard

years ago 'chicken little' got hit in the head with the following. I thought the sky was falling but when I woke up the following file was lying next to me. maybe it will help. not sure where it originated from but what the heck. controlledgroup.xls

No you may not. You must have a year with NHCE only getting matches. Or, you can swtich to current year testing for ACP-only for 5 years. You do not have to test ADP and ACP on the same basis.

Zorro: In my experience, it is always prudent to "see" the POA to verify the authority given. I wouldn't rely on the signature being "notarized" - that just confirms the identity of the signer - not the authority. hr for me: In refinancing, since your husband was a signer of the documents, a verification of his being alive was important as he had an obligation to pay the note (as did you). One can't borrow money if they are dead (although their estate can, but that is a different story). That issue had nothing really to do with the POA (or it's validity) but rather with insuring that the obligor was alive and could pay back the borrowed money (or at least was alive at the time of signing - so they would have a claim on his estate if he later died). POAs are strange things - and the way they are drafted can make a big difference (general or limited, indefinite or for a period of time, regular or "durable") and the specific authority given (medical, financial, etc.). When in doubt, DEMAND the POA and consult a lawyer to see if it covers the transaction at hand.

From my way back days, I thought only the IRS could put a lien on a participant's benefit. But maybe that was a lien and not an in-service distribution to satisfy some IRS tax/penalty... ? [i am not a lawyer, but] If it was neither an IRS tax lien or a court order determined by the plan administrator to be a QDRO (which would never be the case for a court order to discharge a debt owed to a non-dependent), the plan administrator has a fiduciary obligation to reject the court order. So if the plan complied and paid it out, the participant would have what would probably have been a sound cause of action against the plan administrator. If the participant owed somebody some money but had no funds other than those held by the plan, the creditor is plain out of luck until and unless the participant directs the plan administrator to pay the money to the participant. The money can never be paid directly to the creditor.

What and when were the formalities of adoption of the substantive provisions for elective deferrals in the plan document, and the effective date? What were the relevant communications to employees? For example, was the document (with the elective deferral provisions) adopted in 2015 with a January 1 effective date with a notice issued to participants that described elective deferrals? "Lack of intent" on the part of the adopter is meaningless in light of action and documents that clearly and loudly speak otherwise in such a monumental way, although the plan might prevail upon the IRS for grace under VCP. If participants were given reasonable opportunity to elect contributions but all failed or declined to defer, the plan can be amended prospectively to remove the elective deferral provisions.