Leaderboard

Hey Dave - sorry if this has been dicussed before but I'm just noticing...what is the "member reputation" figure that appears by our names with a plus sign and a blue number? Not that I'm vain mind you, but mine is rather low and I wasn't sure what is driving it 🙂

Not to worry - thank you for checking and I feel better now about my "reputation" 😁

Thank you Lois! I'm not able to click on the number (perhaps my browser or browser settings?). If I put my cusor over the number it only says "member's total reputation".

Hello -- A client with a profit-sharing plan adopted a restatement of its pre-approved plan document by the April 30, 2016 deadline but implemented a retroactive effective date (2015). I submitted a VCP application seeking approval of a retroactive effective date. In addition to the limits on retroactive amendments under Internal Revenue Code Section 401(b) and applicable regulations, the pre-approved document itself states that the effective day must not be earlier than the first day of the Plan Year (here, a calendar year) that the restatement is adopted. I know that the remedial amendment cycle allows retroactive amendments for "disqualifying provisions" but my understanding is that those provisions have their own effective dates, but the plan as whole should still have an effective date as of the year of adoption. The VCP agent said that there was no issue because the restatement was adopted by the April 30, 2016 deadline and within the two-year window provided in Announcement 2014-16, but he also could not provide an authority as to the overall retroactive effective date. So I'm not sure I agree, but I don't want to belabor the issue either. I mostly just want some assurance that if there is a subsequent audit of the plan, that agent won't disagree with this agent. Does anyone fall on one side or the other as to this analysis? Thanks so much!

If he can get the taxes paid on time, he can get the 401(k) deferrals (and loan repayments; don't forget those!) where they need to be. If the current process is inadequate, then the process needs to change.

Understood. Maybe your penance is answering the original request for a tutorial on all things discrimination? 😁

If the meeting was to fly down to the company worksite to explain the valuation, I don't see why charging the trust is a problem. It's an administrative expense, and probably allowed for in whatever engagement letter the company signed with the actuarial firm. if there was any other business carried on at the meetings that involved plan design or corporate liability calculations, the travel expense probably need to be allocated between the company and the trust.

My understanding of the regulations is that you cannot start safe harbor provisions prior to deferral provisions. Is that not accurate?

**game** the system

Thank you for the kind words. Using our skills to put a sensible interpretation on an ambiguous statute is why clients pay us.

I think we usually use code G and the taxable amount is the amount being rolled over since it is going into a Roth IRA.