Leaderboard

My opinion is why would you ever give up the ADP testing exemption. For what? There are providers out there who are quite good (American Funds RK Direct being one). "There are no HCE's today" is by no means indicative of what the lay of the land will be even in 5 years. OK, I guess if limiting participation to those with a year of service is a critical organization goal (for example if there is extreme turnover) then I guess 401k. But I have sat through to many non-profit takeovers where I had to address TESTING issues! That is just uncalled for with a non-profit.

So many semantic nuances.... so little time. JPOD wasn't saying that the entire $6,000 is "an MRD piece". He was saying that of the $6,000 (which constitutes a payment of the balance of his benefit) a "piece" of that $6,000 should be considered an MRD and that piece should not be rolled. Your EPCRS argument might win the day, but it hardly seems worthwhile to do anything other than follow JPOD's lead since the MRD "piece" will be but a few hundred dollars. Why risk the plan's qualified status? It certainly doesn't make sense to file under EPCRS, IMNSHO.

Tom Poje and Kevin C, thank you for your great help. Am I right in guessing such an "other attachment" slot lets a user upload any .pdf? Will the document submitted under this "other" slot be included within the Form 5500 report posted on EBSA's public-display website?

on the other hand, if using Relius and the person terminated and you deleted them from the system, even though they show back on the system, my experience is prior years are not restored, and therefore the system thinks they fail the 1 year service rule. so I would check years of service the person has. (If not Relius I would be curious as well, just to know what might be going on with another software)

I've found that Relius (if that's indeed what you're using) doesn't always handle rehire eligibility correctly, especially for disaggregation. To be fair, that may be my own inexperience using it rather than a shortcoming of their system! My understanding is that if you're testing excludables separately, Relius excludes anybody who hasn't met "age 21 and hired at least 18 months prior" even if some of those people have met the plan's entry requirements and are in fact deferring. It may only be looking at the rehire date to make the "18 month" determination. If that's the case then my answer to your question would be "no."

Lots of talk - I'll believe it when I see it. In the case of the company I work for, it's full steam ahead to comply REGARDLESS of whether the rule is repealed, delayed, modified, or any combination of the foregoing. It is perceived as "the right thing to do" and is expected to be a competitive advantage in the marketplace against those who do otherwise.

What does the plan document say? It governs the plan, not the payroll company's system. If the document allows it and the Plan Administrator is the employer, then it is up to them to tell the payroll company what to do. If the payroll company persists, ask them to contact their legal department to point out that by exercising discretionary authority over plan document interpretation and plan operations, they are making themselves an ERISA fiduciary to the plan. This may not get you anywhere, but it could be fun entertainment, at least if you're a pension geek like me.