My client ABC Company allows participants to make up missed contributions from the time missed during a military leave. While they do have a payroll process in place, the participant would like to send a check for the amount of the missed contributions. The participant is aware of the loss of the pre-tax benefit by doing so. Is a participant permitted to make up the contributions to the 401k plan outside of payroll deferrals?

As we celebrate the start of the December annual election period for 409A unsecured nonqualified deferred compensation plans, we want to pause and ask ourselves:

HCE Class Employee – In light of external secure lifelong plan alternatives available today to all 401(k) HCE’s, does it really make sense to risk your paychecks in an unsecured 409A benefit plan with your current employer?

Employer - – In light of external secure lifelong plan alternatives available today to all HCE Class employees, does sponsoring an unsecured 409A elective deferral benefit plan to a restricted group of HCE’s reinforce the corporate culture you want to communicate to your employees and the world today?

I have a plan on Relius Admin .... participant was hired 3/20/10 and only worked 300 hours in 2010. As of her 1-year anniversary, she had only worked 500 hours. She went to full time at about that time and as of 9/30/11, she had worked 1,100 hours in calendar 2011.

The plan has quarterly entry, eligibility service is anniversary date with a shift to calendar, one year of service/age 21.

I have always taken the position that if not 1,000 hours in the first anniversary year, then the person has the next calendar year to satisfy the requirement and if they do, would enter on the first entry date in the next plan year.

Relius, though, is allowing this person to enter on 10/1/2011 because she had 1,000 hours in 2011 before the final entry date in the year.

Just wondering if others have seen this and whether you agree with my position or with Relius.

Thanks.

James

What are people doing about DB plans that have already been amended to comply with section 436 now that the IRS has issued a sample amendment? Should a plan sponsor simply replace the previously adopted provisions with the sample amendment or try to tweak the language already in the plan to come as close as possible to the sample language? In one case I've seen, the plan language spells out the regulations (not incorporated by reference), but there are slight differences in the layout/order of the information and in the wording. If the sample amendment is adopted to replace the previously adopted language, can the plan still rely on the 411(d)(6) protection provided by Notice 2011-96 with respect to any differences that may exist between the previously adopted plan provisions and the sample provisions (i.e., what if some slight difference exists between the sample language and the plan's prior 436 amendment so that the adoption of the sample amendment to replace the prior 436 amendment eliminates a protected benefit?). Notice 2011-96 provides, "To the extent that the adoption of the sample amendment in the appendix to this notice by the deadline described in this section III causes the elimination or reduction of a § 411(d)(6) protected benefit under a plan, the elimination or reduction is made only to the extent necessary to enable the plan to meet the requirements of § 436 and therefore does not cause the plan to fail to meet the anti-cutback requirements of § 411(d)(6)." This language seems to cover a plan's adoption of the sample amendment even where the plan has already adopted a 436 amendment that it is now replacing with the sample amendment. Thoughts?

I understand that a participant may only elect an in-plan roth conversion upon a distributable event. How does this apply to money that the employee rolled in to the plan from a former employer's plan? The money is 100% vested and the employee may withdraw it at any time. My thoughts are that it is not eligible for conversion unless the employee experiences a distributable event under the current plan (i.e. distributable event under the former plan was termination of employment but money was rolled into current plan).

Thoughts??

WRERA makes changes to Section 415 of the Code. Do these changes significantly affect multiemployer pension plans, in asmuch as requiring employers to change pension language?

Employee took lump sum benefit (including savings plan, pension and enhanced severence package) in 2002 (age 54) and rolled entire benefit over into 2 IRAs. employment from 1966 -2002 (36 years) and married in 1977. Divorce was filed in 2010. The IRAs have been used as income since 2008 (age 59 1/2).

the Employee is claiming 11/36 of the original payout as non-marital (years worked prior to marriage). The alternate payee is claiming that the lump sum was converted to IRAs in 2002 and are no longer a qualifying plan. If the coverture fraction was to be applied, it is used to determine the alternate payees portion (25/36). In order to claim any portion as non-marital the former employee would have the burden of showing the amounts of funds in both the pension and the savings plan.

Comments? Has anyone ever seen or had any knowledge of a "reverse" retroactive QDRO enforced?

Another 8955-SSA Question.

Final Form 5500-SF filed in 2011 for 2010 Plan Year. Technically Plan has been closed out. Is anyone filing an 8955-SSA to report Participants who have been paid their vested entitlement Code D, who were previously reported as Code A? Would this open the Plan to a new statute of limitations? Yes I realize that it is only for 1 year.

Final Form 5500-SF filed in 2008 for 2007 Plan Year. Technically Plan has been closed out. Is anyone filing an 8955-SSA in this situation to report Participants who were paid their vested entitlement Code D, who were previously reported as Code A? Would this open the Plan to a new statute of limitations? The 3 year statuate has already run out.

Any help is greatly appreciated.

Thanks.

Richie

ok, posted again. same old puzzles as before.

but I never get tired of it.

130 songs to identify, with a list of 260 or so songs from which to pick.

enter the song number (not the name) in the yellow box and the sheet should indicate if you are correct.

Dang it, I still can only remember only about 85% of them, and I look at it every year.

actually, I hold there are no wrong answers, just better answers than others.

it was neat to pass this out to someone the other night and ask

what about #27?

the response "Its a knight saying shhhhh"

and then the face light up and "Oh, the answer is ..........."

"this is going to be fun!"

I'm sure this has been asked, and I did search in the forum, so I apologize if it's been addressed already - I have a QACA plan where their first scheduled deferral rate increase to 4 percent is on 1/1/2012.

Which eligible participants get increased to the 4 percent minimum and who should not be touched?

1) Those who did not make an affirmative election and are at the default of 3 percent today?

2) Those addressed in #1, plus those that did make an affirmative election, but at a rate of 3 percent or lower, including those that chose to not participate?

Also, when there is a scheduled increase, are participants to receive any special type of notice outside of the normal annual QACA notice?

Thank you in advance.

do folks (us practioners) generally contact the plan sponsor of a small plan once they find out that they are not exempt from the schedule I plan audit requirement and advise them to contact a CPA firm to get it handled?

what if they don't have ample time to get the audit prior to filing of 5500 due date?

curious how this issue is handled logistically.

Do some of you contact clients just after the plan year ends to make this determination and inform them at that time? For example in January 2012 we can find out if a plan is bonded sufficiently at end of 2011 and then advise at that time.

thanks

Any help with this is greatly appreciated.

If I was setting up a 401K plan (just myself, no employees), it is my understanding that I can serve as the Trustee of the plan provided it is established and maintained correctly. But there are no IRS rules which would prevent me from serving as the trustee.

Recently someone sent something to me....but I don't think it is truly in relationship to this question that suggests that an individual cannot serve as the trustee and it has to be an independent source...and I am not talking about IRAs, rather 401Ks.

I don't think this is correct but would love any feedback on this question. Thanks.

John

Question - and this is theoretical - is it possible for a DB plan to be overfunded for 415 purposes, and yet still have a required minimum funding contribution? If so, how is this possible? Is there a "disconnect" between minimum funding calculations and 415 maximum calculations that makes this possible?

Thanks!

When someone takes a hardship withdrawal and the plan has other related plans at the current trustee and recordkeeper, should the participant be suspended from making contributions to the other plans at that recordkeeper/trustee? What if one of the other plans is a nonqualified plan?

Does anybody know, previously encountered a similar situation or care to hazzard a guess as to whether a 401(k) Plan participant's spouse's father (i.e., the participant's father-in-law) qualifies as a "parent" for purposes of a "safe-harbor condition" hardship witrhdrawal for payment of funeral expenses?

Thanks for any and all input/comments.

Client would like to adopt a new 401(k) plan to be effective 1/1/11. Ideal plan design for them is safe harbor. Is it too late to adopt a safe harbor plan for 2011?

Thanks

a dutch dual citizen has appx $100K in his plan overseas. He now resides in the states and is wanting to establish a plan for his sole prop. company here and avoid taxes. I did a search on foreign plans on this thread and did not come up with anything. My guess is that any U.S. DB/DC plan would NOT accept rollovers from other countries unless perhaps if they were a U.S. owned company.

Any suggestions?

Thanks

We have a Cash Balance Plan that ceased to be covered as of May 2010 (all participants were terminated and paid out except the owner, and the plan did not terminate). At the time, the plan sponsor sent a letter to the PBGC explaining it was no longer covered and why. The PBGC sent a letter in response agreeing, and memorializing the actual date at which the plan ceased to be covered. We in turn filed an amended 2010 filing, requesting a pro-rated refund because the plan had paid a premium for the entire year of 2010. The refund in question is approximately $400.

After the amended filing was submitted, the PBGC first sent a letter saying the plan was not eligible for a refund. The plan sponsor wrote another response letter explaining the situation and re-requesting the refund. The PBGC then called the plan sponsor and informed him that they refund, or allow pro-ration of, premiums in only two circumstances: plan termination; or, change of plan year--creating a short year. They also claimed the instructions clarify this. I read the 2011 PBGC premium filing instructions and could not find this explained anywhere.

Anyone know of any backup for their position?

Given: Profit Sharing Plan. Current employees are Owner Husband and Wife. No other employee.

However, the parents of the husband worked before but terminated years ago. Account balance of parents are still in the trust account.

Question: Is this a one-participant plan? Is this an SF or EZ filing?

Thanks for all responses.

When completing Part III Line 9, column (g) for a DC plan, as of what date do you report the total value of the account? Let's say I'm completing a 2009 Form 8955-SSA for a calendar year plan and reporting a participant that terminated during 2008. Should we report this participant's 12/31/2008 vested balance, or current vested balance, or? Or does it matter?

Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!