Does anyone know of any web-based defined benefit valuation software?

Forgive the studipity of this question, but are 403(b)'s exempt from ADP testing?

Need your thoughts...stock acquisition, Buyer acquires Target mid-year. Buyer assumes Target's 401(k) plan (and intends to merge it into its own at the commencement of the following plan year). Buyer began allocating a profit sharing contribution based on compensation on a payroll-by-payroll basis immediately following acquisition date. Other than the fact that the allocation has excluded pre-acquisition compensation, the contributions have been allocated according to a definition of compensation that satisfies a 414(s) safe harbor.

Under these circumstances, has the contribution that has already occurred been allocated according to a 414(s) definition? Or must we test the employer contributions considering pre-acquisition compensation as well?

I can't find any guidance on this, but there must be a rule! Anyone out there considered this before?

I want to be sure I am reading this correctly-I understand that this does not constitute the official stance of the IRS-but in a presentation on EPCRS, Bhagat clarifies the policy on using forfeitures to fund QNECs for purposes of making corrective contributions. Scenario is that ER failed to w/hold EE deferrals on two forms of "extra" payments, one of which was a bonus payment. The plan uses SH match to be a SH 401k.

Would you agree, based on the excerpt below, that the client can use Plan forfeitures to offset the OOP expense for the QNEC corrective contributions, so long as the QNEC is 100% vested and subject to the distribution restrictions? (I should also point out that the failure only affects one ER in a Plan which covers several ERs-so even if my suspicion is accurate-that they can use forfeitures-those are Plan assets and the fact that they are used to help out one of the ERs makes no difference w/r/t the other ERs?)

"Shifting gears again, this one relates to the use of forfeitures to make corrective QNCs. The question is, can a plan use forfeitures to make qualified non-elective contributions for correcting a failed ADP test? In the past we've been guilty of allowing the use of forfeitures, especially in plans where the plan provides that the forfeitures are used to reduce employer contributions.

Let's suppose your plan fails the ADP test and an employer contribution is required to fix it, we in the past used to say, well, since the plan provides that forfeitures are used to reduce employer contribution requirements why not use the forfeitures as a source of funding of the qualified non-elective contribution. As long as at the time the money hits the participant's that the participant is fully vested we should be good. The employee's been made whole and you're complying with the requirements of the ADP test.

However, it was later on pointed out to us that if we take that approach we're violating a regulation because if you look at the regulations for the definition of qualified non-elective contribution it basically says that the qualified non-elective contribution should come from non-elective contributions that satisfy the vesting and the distribution requirements in the 401(k) at the time the contribution was made to the plan. Since generally forfeitures are derived from contributions that were not fully vested when made, forfeitures cannot be used to satisfy that QNC requirement to correct a failed ADP test without violating a regulation.

One of the correction principles is that you don't want to implement one fix that causes a violation of another code or regulation requirement. So basically our stand is, after being made aware of this regulation, is that for purposes of correcting a failed ADP test if you're using QNC to fix it, the monies for the QNCs can't come from forfeitures.

Now, to make an area of distinction, though, and by the way, that clarification will also be made in the next revenue procedure -if you have an excluded employee problem and you want to use forfeitures to fund the QNCs required to replace the missed deferral opportunity of an excluded employee, there because that's more of a revenue procedure fix as opposed to a regulation required fix, we would permit the use of forfeitures to provide for the employer contributions required to correct an excluded employee problem. So, no for the correction of the ADP test; yes for correction of the excluded employee problem. "

GW's participant fee disclosure form for sponsors is asking if there is a DEsignated Investment MAnager under 3(38) of ERISA. I cant find the definiition anywhere. Anyone have it? It sounds like this is probably not the same thing as a "broker" who probably is requied to get the client to sign off on any changes.

Am I more or less on the right track?

Plan allows multiple loans and loans are not my strong point. Participant terminated last year and 2 loans were defaulted (total $17,000). Plan Sponsor then moved assets and in the process, 1 other outstanding loan was deemed (total $18,000). He never took a distribution and was then rehired. He is now asking for a new loan, with a current outstanding balance of $37,000.

I'm without a doubt confused here, and there are probably issues I'm unaware of, but assuming he can take another loan, with balance 1 year ago of $35,000, would available loan balance be $1,500 (50% of $37,000 - $17,000)?

Suppose you have a small DB plan that was effective 1/1/2007 and only requires 1 hour of service per year of participation to accrue a benefit. Also, suppose the company was started 10/1/2006. Several employees worked more than 1 hour prior to the effective date of the plan (from 10/1/06 to 12/31/06).

A Year of service for benefit accrual purposes is defined as the completion of one hour of service.

The plan provides a benefit of x% of average salary for each year of participation. Each participant has 5 years of participation.

The 415 pct of pay limit should be average salary x years of service. Can the period 10/1/06-12/31/06 be counted as a year of service for 415 pct of pay limit?

Thanks.

Does anyone know if a NQP benefit in the form of installments can qualify for deferral under section 1035?

I have a plan document that is written with 3 groups. Group 1 is the owner, group 2 is participants with more than 35 years of service and group 3 is all others. If the sponsor wants groups 2 and 3 to receive the same contribution percentage, can I code my testing system to allocate based on 2 groups? Is there a risk that in doing so, if discovered under audit, the IRS/DOL would question why the doc has 3 group but the test only has 2?

Top heavy profit sharing plan that is cross-tested. Each participant is in his/her own group.

My understanding is that HCEs need not get a gateway. However, if the plan is top heavy and they are employed on the last day, they must get 3% to satisfy TH min. Does then require them to get 5%? I would think not.

Thanks.

Howdy all,

With the 2011 form not released yet, are others using the 2009 form or are they going to wait for the 2011 form? Internally we have to different arguements. Some say wait and others just want to get the form our the door with the 5500. Any opinions by others would be helpful.

Also, does the IRS have any offical guidance on what to do when there is no current form to file?

Thanks,

Frizzyguy

Having purchased everything we needed to file the 8955 SSA, and having produced lovely-looking paper copies, we have been unable to file electronically. ATX says that we are unable to do so. (I don't know why--I am not the one pushing the "send" button.)

1. Does anyone have any positive experience filing the 8955 electronically using ATX software?

2. Given that today is the deadline and assuming that ATX is no longer an option, can anyone suggest an electronic Plan B?

3. Failing that, is there a paper Plan B option?

Any suggestions gratefully received!

Does anybody know how to switch from Daily Valuation to Balance Forward during a Plan Year(2011) My firm was using Daily Valuation until March 2011(they outsourced this to another firm to do the Daily admin) I have gain losses and contributions that posted until March 2011, and need to reverse them?

The Final 415 Regulations allowed employers to choose whether or not they would include salary continuation payments for participants on military service in the definition of compensation. When the HEART Act was passed, it required that employers count differential wage payments as plan compensation. Are the terms "salary continuation" and "differential wage payments" being used interchangably for this purpose? In other words, is the purpose of HEART to override the 415 language? I know that salary continuation could be something different than just paying the difference, but are these 2 provisions really addressing the same thing, or 2 different issues?

Thanks!

UPDATE - I found the response to my answer in an earlier post.

Hi - I am picking up a plan that has (1) self directed investments for 401(k) accounts (at John Hancock); and (2) Trustee Directed ("pooled") investments for Profit Sharing Contributions. Participants may not elect to self-direct their profit sharing accounts.

If the plan were entirely Trustee Directed, it would be exempt from Participant-level disclosure requirements. However, given that part of the plan is self-directed, does anyone know whether the pooled account becomes subject to participant disclosure? {Remember, participants DO NOT have a choice about investing in the pooled account. They cannot self direct profit sharing funds; and they cannot elect to invest 401(k) accounts in the pooled profit sharing account.}

I'm thinking the pooled account is not 'Designated Investment Alternative' (DIA), but I can't find anything on point.. What do you think?

Thanks very much.

An illegal alien with false documents was hired in 2006, and starting participating in the profit sharing plan in 2007. His illegal status was just discovered, and he has not returned to work. The Employer does not want to pay him any pension benefits, because he was hired and participated under false pretenses. Only discretionary Employer Contributions are in the plan. Is there any authority for forfeiture of the account and reallocation to remaining participants?

Does anyone have some insight into what to what is meant by the following language in 1.409A-1(b)(5)(iii)(A): "Except as otherwise provided in paragraphs (b)(5)(iii)(B), ©, and (D) of this section, the term service recipient stock means a class of stock that, as of the date of grant, is common stock for purposes of section 305 and the regulations thereunder of a corporation that is an eligible issuer of service recipient stock (as defined in paragraph (b)(5)(iii)(E) of this section). Unless I'm missing something, I can't find anything in Section 305 or the regulations thereunder that helps define common stock.

I prsume this is an easy one for you TPA types . . .

Say a DC participant has a $100,000 account balance, $30,000 of which represents an outstanding loan. Participant terminates employment, and requests a rollover of the remaining $70,000. $6,000 mandatory withholidng (20% X $30,000) is taken from the $70,000, so that only $64,000 can be rolled over--correct?

Are people filing their SSA extensions whether or not one is due? Of course the issue is that we probably don't know if one is due because if we did there is a good chance we would have filed by that date.

I know that, before the association with Linkedin, the ASPPA practitioner forums didn't draw much activity ; and I'm also aware that communicating via social media is a "now" thing and we sometimes have to break out of old grooved tracks and embrace the new ; but I also think that in some situations "old way" is better than "new way" ; I've been going back and forth between Blink ,Actuarial Outpost, ACOPA, and ASPPA's Linkedin group and I have to say that I like the visual presentation of the others better than Linkedin.

For this benefits professional/practitioner seeing a great many questions and topics together on the screen is preferable to seeing someone's picture with a question and only seeing a few questions per screen ; the search features of the other forums are also better and obviously designed for topic research.

And yes I do have a FB account and now also a Linkedin account because I like ASPPA - but I don't think a social media approach is an efficient one in this case.

Would be interested to know what others think ?