Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 02/02/2022 in all forums

  1. Bill Presson
    Assuming the termination resolution/amendment said that all contributions cease and no new people will enter after 4/25/21, then anyone hired after that date is irrelevant. The auditor is wrong.
    3 points
  2. Calavera
    Am I only one who is confused by this question? The plan sponsor have to make the minimum required contribution, and may make more than the minimum required contribution. The plan sponsor doesn't really makes deposits on anyone's behalf.
    2 points
  3. Hojo
    This is the key, "Assume minimum required contribution requirement is not an issue, whether this $1,000 is deposited or not." If they make the minimum required contribution then who cares?
    2 points
  4. Bri

    Self Correction or VCP?

    Luke Bailey and one other reacted to Bri for a topic

    I'd suspect VCP would be needed for that. (I was thinking outside the box, though - fix the W2s, make the employees whole through payroll, and keep the amounts in the plan as profit sharing allocations, as long as the document allows individual allocation groups....or you do an -11g amendment to conform....AND you still have to pass 410b/401a4. Might be easier to just submit and pay a VCP fee, though.)
    2 points
  5. Chaz
    My understanding is that it is a requirement for New York insurers. Note that if the health plan in question is self-insured, it would not need to comply with the law because of ERISA preemption.
    1 point
  6. Bill Presson
    Agreed with Lou. I prefer that combination in fact.
    1 point
  7. Jakyasar
    Looks like as long as min required is done, who cares other than matching pay credits.
    1 point
  8. Belgarath
    Going from memory, no. Basis recovery for Taxable Term costs can only be used if the policy is distributed to the participant, or surrendered by the trustee. However, caveat emptor - it has been a LONG time since I had any dealings with life insurance in qualified plans. You will hopefully get a response from someone more in tune with this.
    1 point
  9. Catch22PGM
    I'm with Lou S. - it sounds like a traditional enhanced safe harbor match with automatic enrollment. No need to overthink it. If it was QACA the AA would specifically say that it is QACA. The only significant difference (based on the information you provided) would be the possible 2-year vesting on the match and auto escalation if the auto enrollment wasn't at least 6% from the start.
    1 point
  10. BG5150
    QACAs have their own match schedule, deferral escalation rules, vesting requirements. (Though I think the match is immediately vested as opposed to QACA NEC which can be 2-yr cliff)
    1 point
  11. Lou S.
    It sounds like you have a safe harbor 401(k) plan with an automatic enrollment feature. I'm not seeing a problem. Am I missing something?
    1 point
  12. Lois Baker

    DOL cybersecurity topics

    ugueth reacted to Lois Baker for a topic

    Here are some additional resources.
    1 point
  13. Chaz
    I recommend the annual Multistate Guide To Benefits Law put out by, I believe, Wolters Kluwer.
    1 point
  14. Mr Bagwell
    The 403b may be a huge difference maker if the plan is not a safe harbor design as the ADP will pass with universal availability. Some non-profits don't have/don't want to spend the safe harbor dollars, but the HCE wants to defer the max. Under the 401k this would be a problem. Under the 403b this is not a problem.
    1 point
This leaderboard is set to New York/GMT-05:00
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use

  I accept