Leaderboard

Teatree, you really are asking fundamental questions that does show you are a newbie and the issues surrounding your fact pattern are substantive and complicated. Yes, your understanding (the penultimate sentence above) is significantly off base. While a safe harbor 401(k) plan can be established for just one member of a controlled group, you still will have to deal with coverage issues and discrimination testing if you have HCEs in your plan and you don't have the employees of the other members of the controlled group covered. What is your involvement with this situation? What is your position/job/background? This belongs with a competent service provider who can guide the clients; no offense is intended, but it clearly sounds like providing competent consulting is not yet something you can do and you can't really learn all the ins and outs on this bulletin board system. The issue is significantly technical and to keep the client out of trouble, the client needs guidance from well educated providers. This is not something that a "newbie" should be attempting to figure out just by reading some stuff. What is your background? Have you taken any courses (such as ASPPA education courses)? Do you have any designations? etc. etc. Not a knock on your desire to learn (that's good), but a great concern for your client that you probably don't have the depth of knowledge necessary to advise this client (at least, not at this point in your career) and you are not going to get what you need from posting here. Of course, we really don't know much about you other than your self described newbie status, but the questions asked are enough to make it clear you have much to learn, and you can't learn on real live clients. All, just, FWIW.

The law as written references the need for the participant to be claiming the child as a dependent on his tax return. You will have no proof of this until April 15 of the following year. So, you need not only a representation that the child is the participant's but that the child will be claimed on the tax return. Perhaps require a copy of last year's 1040 showing the mother as a joint filer? IRS guidance cannot come too soon.

They probably can't, and it probably isn't worth trying to mandate it. But they can offer them the option of direct deposit if they have that capability. They can offer existing retirees the same deal. But in either case, it will be at the option of the participant. There is a federal law that can allow it, but the states mostly override that. Here is some info on the issue: The Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA), also known as federal Regulation E, permits employers to make direct deposit mandatory, as long as the employee is able to choose the bank that his or her wages will be deposited into. Alternatively, employers can choose the bank that employees must use for direct deposit. But in that case, the employer must also provide employees another means of payment, such as cash or paper check. The employee can then decide whether to go with direct deposit at the bank of the employer’s choosing or with the other means of payment. State Law In some states, an employer can make direct deposit mandatory, provided certain stipulations are met. For instance, employers in Kansas, Indiana, Texas, Missouri and South Carolina can require employees to accept direct deposit, but the employer must provide another payroll payment method — such as payroll card, cash or check — to employees who do not have a bank account. In many states — including California, New York, New Jersey, Florida, Vermont and Illinois — employers must obtain written permission from employees in order to pay them by direct deposit. A good rule of thumb is to require written authorization from the employee, even if state law doesn’t say to. In some states that allow employers to require direct deposit, the rules are very specific. For example, in Utah, an employee cannot refuse payment of wages via direct deposit if: In the prior year, the employer’s annual federal payroll tax deposits amounted to at least $250,000, and; At least two-thirds of the employer’s workers are being paid by direct deposit. At the very least, the state may adopt the provisions of Regulation E. If the state extends additional protections to employees, the employer must use the law offering the employee the most benefits. And if the state does not have laws on direct deposit, federal law applies. You can determine your state’s stance on this by examining its wage payment statutes, which may also require that you give employees a pay stub each time they are paid — whether by direct deposit, check, cash or payroll card. Here is a link to a chart of state by state rules (as of 2017 it appears): http://www.hrknowledge.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Direct-Deposit-State-DD-Laws.pdf

It also makes a difference if it was an asset purchase or a stock purchase.

Section 410(b) doesn't apply to 403(b) deferrals. It does apply to other types of contributions in a 403(b) plan. If it is not a Church plan, the universal availability requirement of 1.403(b)-5(b) applies to 403(b) deferrals. Even with the recent IRS guidance on once in - always in for the < 20 hours per week exclusion, we recommend against using it. A single mistake can result in expensive retroactive corrections because of the all or nothing rule that applies.

That hasn't changed.

Why would you not? If you include this person and testing would then fail, do you think you then don't have to correct? If IRS audited do you think they would give the employer a free pass on testing with incorrect data?

I agree with ESOP guy on both counts. More specifically for the first Q, we'd show it as an asset with an offsetting liability on the plan's balance sheet, but all 0s on the 5500SF. I don't want to take a chance with "the system" rejecting it for having assets at the end of the year.

I can't cite anything for question 1 but we rarely file a 5500 for amounts that small. My guess is if someone wanted to comply to the letter of the law you are supposed to file a 5500 for 2020. You need an auditor's report for your question 2. It is based on beginning employee count and there is no getting around it.

If you are asking do they have to treat the employees from different acquisitions the same in the ESOP the answer is "no".

Short answer is negative. I am sure some maven will give you a fuller explanation, which is not unique to ESOPs.

An employer does not need to offer more than a single group health plan. Does this answer your question?

Obviously I agree with Larry that guidance is needed, but if you are desperate to implement it now, you should be ok as long as you can show that the steps you took were in good faith. I would probably go with requiring documentation during the good faith period and then possibly changing it after guidance comes out if it is more lenient. I think the repayment is the trickier part, the limits and events are fairly straight forward, and even where there is a question you can argue reasonable interpretation while we wait for guidance.

Not enough info to give a definitive answer, but it is possible. Would at least need to see the spd and the EOB for reason of payment. Remember, not all group health plans need to offer EHB’s.

And receive the safe harbor matching because there can't be any hours requirement once the eligibility is met. I know that was implied.

Barring any (unusual) language, once a participant always a participant. He can continue to defer.