Leaderboard

I have to ask a (maybe not so obvious) question. And maybe I am not understanding what you are wanting to do even if permissible, is it wise? How the heck is payroll going to setup so many deduction codes based on which vendor the participant has requested? That's a multiple for each vendor allowed. I can't imagine multiple data feeds going in and out to a bunch of different vendors for the same purpose ( single retirement plan)....What if the participant wants to change vendors to access a different provision, can they? Or can a participant direct some funds to one vendor and other funds to another vendor? Or are you going to have some specific way to limit some employees to one vendor and others to a different one? Wouldn't you have to be careful about BRFs? Honestly I would pass this by the payroll/programming department (either inhouse or your third party payroll provider) to see what the cost is going to be for (1) setup and (2) ongoing. I would study the WHY there is a need for more than one vendor....

Plan documents (at least the one I use) have language to require PT Employees to actually work a full year of service in order to enter the plan while allowing everyone else to enter in a shorter period. The document also has the language necessary to define PT employees in terms of the number of ours worked per week. For instance, You can write a plan with a one month entry while requirement PT employees to work a full year. PT employees can be defined as anyone working less than 25 hours per week. I believe the client got bad advice; as it is obvious that this was not explored. As a result, thousands are going to be paid for an independent auditor for something that could've easily been prevented. The unfortunate thing is that I've seen much worse; clients getting hung out to dry by not receiving the accurate and complete information necessary to make an informed decision. Good Luck!

Either client got bad advice or the plan was poorly designed or client has selective memory - or possibly a combination of all three. #1 - 2015 is in the books correct and proper as the plan was written, I assume, in which case there is nothing to correct and so #2 and #3 are moot.

As you note they are different at beginning at end. I don't believe there are any calcs on the K-1 that use either number; it is just informational (but I'm not an accountant and don't prepare them so could be all wet, but I remember trying to tie different numbers out at some point and learning that almost nothing ties to anything). You are talking about contributions for non-partners, right? I doubt anyone thought that through so someone (else) is going to have to make a determination on that. I'd think some kind of average partnership percentage for the year is fair.

Perhaps, with luck, this might be accomplished without a custom document? Don't know if such provisions would perhaps be allowed in a pre-approved document under an "other" election, or in an Appendix, etc...? Just a thought.

Sure! As long as the plan document is clear on what is allowed, this should be permissible. The one practical problem is that the IRS will no longer rule on custom plan documents, but will only issue opinion or advisory letters on pre-approved plans. So if you choose this mechanism, you'd be on your own in making sure it was acceptable under 403(b).

Then you didn't go to the right sessions.

I can't believe no one has latched on to the real problem here. More than likely, he was NOT an independent contractor, but a misclassified employee of his father's practice. I'm willing to bet that an analysis of his "practice" will show he was an employee of his father's practice. I had dental clients years ago who had dentists treated as "independent contractors". I told them that they were at risk, but they continue to treat them as ICs. That is, until they were caught and the 2 partners had to pony up over $100k EACH for all the penalties associated with misclassifying employees. Ever since Microsoft got caught with the same problem, most plan documents have language that says if an employee who was thought NOT to be an employee is found to be an actual employee, they are still not eligible for the plan. Of course, this means the plan now has to pass non-discrimination while counting those individuals as employees. It may not be a problem if they would have been paid enough to be HCEs, but if they only made $100k a year, then they are going to count against all the tests because they are NHCEs getting zero. Anyway, I think he's taking a big risk in not just crediting time with his father's firm for everyone; I probably would not handle the case if he didn't agree to do that. Larry.