Leaderboard

The BenefitsLink elves have been busy lately, cobbling together an improved version of our online directory of webcasts and conferences for employee benefits practitioners. The directory shows upcoming webcasts and conferences from many different firms, and shows hundreds of recorded webcasts available for immediate viewing. Find the directory at: https://benefitslink.com/events By choosing various options on that page, you can drill down to view only those webcasts and conferences that match particular criteria. Here's a link to one particularly useful view: 295 free recorded webcasts on issues affecting retirement plans We now have a total of more than 1,200 webcasts and conferences listed, for all kinds of benefit plans! (That number includes events for which a fee is required by the sponsoring firm, and those that are free.) Enjoy! Dave Baker, Publisher Lois Baker, President BenefitsLink.com

Yes. If you send an email to Janet Mak, she will pass it along to one of their many EPCRS agents who will respond. I've gone so far as to request a phone call in the email and, to my pleasant surprise, I've gotten a phone call in response! Janet publishes her email address on many of the IRS webcasts which I believe are available on the IRS website, so I'm not giving anything away that she hasn't already given: janet.mak@irs.gov

Yes Yes $54,000 is the max amount you can receive plus the catch up for a total of $60,000, but see my next answer. Your limit is $18,000 plus the catch up for a total of $24,000, the remainder must be funded by your employer with match and/or profit sharing money. Your cap is $54,000 plus the catch up, not 70,800. The profit sharing variable depends on the plan design. You would need to speak with your employer about how the profit sharing allocation works. Yes, that counts towards your $54,000 limit if they are funding it into the profit sharing/401k plan. you need to engage a personal financial adviser for this question. (or be very comfortable with online financial calculators)

The BenefitsLink elves have been busy lately, cobbling together an improved version of our online directory of webcasts and conferences for employee benefits practitioners. The directory shows upcoming webcasts and conferences from many different firms, and shows hundreds of recorded webcasts available for immediate viewing. Find the directory at: https://benefitslink.com/events By choosing various options on that page, you can drill down to view only those webcasts and conferences that match particular criteria. Here's a link to one particularly useful view: 240 free recorded webcasts about health and other welfare benefit plans We now have a total of more than 1,200 webcasts and conferences listed, for all kinds of benefit plans! (That number includes events for which a fee is required by the sponsoring firm, and those that are free.) Enjoy! Dave Baker, Publisher Lois Baker, President BenefitsLink.com

The problem with this suggestion is that it probably could be done, but the sponsor does not want to do it. Nothing to stop the sponsor from amending the plan to make matches 100% vested immediately. The key point is that the plan administrator gets to refuse categorically to give this employee, however disgruntled, anything to which he or she is not already entitled, even if he or she was able to find an attorney willing to threaten them. Perhaps the plan administrator should ask the attorney to provide a cite that would give the client's demands any legitimacy. Threats of litigation don't, by themselves, create a reason to give in. The suit, if filed, would have to be against the plan, not the employer (who has no liability for benefit claims against the plan, after all), and there are serious consequences if a plan needlessly gives in and pays amounts to the participant to which the participant is not entitled.

I can also promise you that if you file 2 945's with the same EIN, one will end up supplanting the other and you will be in for a lifetime of IRS correspondence.

an 1800 distribution isn't going to mess up anyone's social security retirement benefit unless she has so much income it pushes her into a higher bracket where more of the benefit is taxed. don't violate plan terms - pay lump sum or pay nothing - she can roll to ira and make her own installments if necessary.

Presumably the plan does not say "hire date." Most likely it says the first date "credited with an hour of service." Sounds unlikely that this occurred on January 1 based on the regulations' definition of "hour of service," which, again presumably, is stated or incorporated by reference in the plan. I don't see room for interpretation. Somebody decided that the plan should have bi-annual entry dates, rather than entry on 6-month anniversary, so stick with what the plan says. If you don't like that result amend the plan for this person, or for all similar situations.

Your post is a mixture of VCP, SCP and VFCP. For the small amount involved I would suggest to the client that the research to determine barely adequate compliance will cost much more than the most generous restorative payments and excise tax filings.

Two dealerships does not automatically mean two companies. BTW, maybe address the original questions to legal counsel for the Employer?

The 945 is to report activity of a specific EIN. I can't tell whether what you are doing is right or wrong, but in either event the 945 should be for the single EIN and therefore a single 945. Unless somebody tells you your single EIN is being used improperly, in which case all bets are off.

David Rigby's point is most important: Be picture-perfect about following the plan's claims procedure (and double-checking that the procedure conforms to ERISA section 503).

Sounds good to me. Speaking as a non-lawyer, I would think that just because someone's lawyer demands something does not put the burden on the recipient to either comply or to point to specific legislative or regulatory citations saying why it cannot be done. Just point to the plan provision that keeps the match from being 100% vested and tell them to go pound sand. The question is not "why can't you do it?" as much as "why should we?". Mere disgruntlement does not create a non-frivolous cause of action or otherwise compel plan sponsors to create exceptions.

Yes to Q1 No to Q2