Leaderboard

I've been pretty critical of some professionals on here, but I think the "I am a Law Student" would allow for a bit of grace, perhaps? I realize we aren't here to give free advice to outsiders in divorce situations, but no need to answer if you weren't feeling it.

This is really harsh. What does "A case pending in a coury?" mean. See, we all make mistakes. Totally agree with Mr. Presson - a little grace is always a good idea!

Totally agree. Just didn't want to go down that rabbit hole again ranting about employee accountability and how (not just here, but many other cases discussed here) it is mind boggling that someone doesn't notice or doesn't say something when something that is supposed to affect their pay and doesn't. But if double health plan premiums were withheld by mistake you can bet they'd be in HR the next day!

The intent of the regulation is to remove discretion after plan year end on the amount of the deferral, so having the self-employed specify a dollar amount or percentage of compensation parallels what a common law employee can do during the plan year. You will find Slide 2 from this somewhat-aged and somewhat-amusing IRS presentation: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/forum08_401k.pdf Several phrases come to mind: let sleeping dogs lie don't trouble trouble til trouble troubles you don't poke the bear tis a puzzlement

If this person is re-employed then you need to follow the distribution rules as they apply to employed participants. If these are being reported with code 1 for premature that tells me the person is not over age 59 1/2 and these are now impermissible in-service distributions. If for some reason they are permissible then they are subject to the additional 10%.

I agree with the comments above but have to ask "why" are you trying to reconcile the numbers on these forms? If I see a discrepancy in a significant number on something that matters to the 403(b) (number of employees listed as 800 on the 990 but we have been told there were 10 when the proposal was issued), I ask the sponsor to explain.

Also depends on what your document says about how to correct the failure. Some give specific instructions and some are silent. You should prefer the document be silent. That way you have all the options available.

I thank you greatly. And yes you are correct. This is for health and welfare plans that are unfunded. I am beside myself because I was told that they are to file a Schedule C for indirect compensation if over $100 but I have not found any back up to support this position. Thanks again for your feedback.

I think it depends on your amendment. Are you only correcting for the year of failure and bringing people in for just that year? If so I think you could do a QNEC of 3% plus the missed deferral opportunity which I believe would be the average ADP of the NHCEs for the year in question. If you are bringing them in as full participants because you expect ongoing failures, then yes you would have to give them the ability to deferral as well.

Good to also start a practice of getting an election form back from every new participant, even those electing 0%.

Most plan sponsors think about their plan(s) in terms of funding. However, for DB plans, the limitation (ie, IRC 415) is based on a maximum benefit. The enrolled actuary can provide details and calculate any limitation applicable to the second plan.

There is no prohibition on doing another DBP like the 401(k) successor plan restrictions, but make sure all the relevant circumstances concerning the termination of the first plan are legitimate and well documented, especially if the owners were under age 59 1/2 and the plan was in existence less than 10 years. Otherwise, IRS could possibly challenge the permanency of the first plan and view the termination and subsequent re-establishment as a circumvention of the in-service distribution rules.