Leaderboard

If you are looking for a document provider with a pre-approved ESOP, ASC, FIS and FT William and possibly a couple of others have them. The IRS has a list of the cycle 3 document sponsors on their website. If you are looking for a firm that is sponsoring an ESOP document from one of the document providers, they are also on this list. If you look at the FFN for a document on the list, characters 8 and 9 tell you which document provider's document they are using. ASC = BH, FIS = 07 and FT William = FT. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/ppa_listdc3.pdf You can get some of the other sponsorship lists here: https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/list-of-preapproved-plans

Kind of... If your document says 3% nonelective, that contribution is required whether you provided a safe harbor notice or not. The notice requirement was removed as a consequence of adding retroactive safe harbor nonelective election. It wouldn't make sense to require a notice if you intend to be safe harbor when the new year starts but waive the notice requirement for the plan that is ADP/ACP tested and elects to be safe harbor on September 1. If you truly want the nonelective contribution to be "optional", you would need to amend to ADP/ACP tested prior to first day of the plan year, amend to be safe harbor mid year if you opt in, and then amend to ADP/ACP tested prior to the next plan year in order to have the same choice in the following year. Ive decided it takes about the same time and effort for me to track the different safe harbors to figure out which one HAS to have a notice, Im just going to continue with a notice for all my SH plans.

Sorry. Had to. ?

The provision is in Treas. Reg. Section 1.401(m)-3(d)(2), so it applies only to the 401(m) safe harbor. However, that provision applies to all matching contributions, not just the non-safe harbor match, so the prohibition against increasing match does not apply to this plan design.

Does the plan currently allow for in-service withdrawals? You mentioned the husband's age, but the wife must also be at least age 59-1/2 for an in-service withdrawal, CRD or otherwise. Make sure the distribution is not restricted under either 1.401(a)(4)-5(b)(3) or 436(d).

I think you're looking for Sec. 6.02(5) which says: You can use a reasonable estimate of the investment results, including the results of the DOL calculator, only if "it is not feasible to make a reasonable estimate of what the actual investment results would have been." In my opinion if you have the data it is feasible to calculate, even if it might be time consuming to do so. Check Appendix B section 3.01(3)(b) and (c) for simplifying assumptions which might make your life a little easier. Of course, you can still rely on the DOL calculator if you correct under VFCP.

My apologies for the delay - I was out for two days. Mr. Luke, the forfeitures are fair and square - BG5150 they are using 100% of the forfeiture account to offset contributions. The document allows forfeitures to be used to offset contribution or pay fees if there are no account restorations required. If the account had a loss, clearly the employer would not benefit from the use of plan assets. My thinking is along Ms. Kimberly's line - that earnings should be allocated to participants and not benefit the employer by reducing the current contribution. I realize that the employer loses the benefit of a high deduction by using the earnings to offset contributions, but I understood that the employer can use funds previously contributed - period. Am I on target? Thank you all for your help!