Does anyone else besides me run afoul of "flood control"? Perhaps I just type faster than average (since my mother made me take typing lessons so I'd "have something to fall back on") but as I navigate through the forums I routinely get the dreaded red message box, making me sit there and count to 15 before I click again.

I understand why flood control is a good thing, just wondering if it bothers other people and if it can be changed to a different amount of time.

Is it possible to calculate a RMD based on to different market values? 10/31 and 12/31

There's a plan whose PYE is 10/31. The 401(k) and Match is valued daily but the PS source is valued annually (10/31). In the past, the RMD has been calculated on the most recent values available.

Is it permissible for the RMD be calculated based on a 12/31 and 10/31 value or would you suggest the PS be valued at 12/31 and then the RMD be calculated.

The SPD for a plan spells a distribution fee as a fixed amount (no mention that it is subject to change).

The plan sponsor increased the distribution fee on April 1 of this year, but they are still in the process of updating that fee disclosure page for the SPD.

A participant was recently paid out and the higher fee was charged to their account.

Must the change of a participant fee be disclosed before the new fee can be in effect or does a reasonable time period exist, such as 210 days like the SPD, for disclosing such changes?

The company employs about 80 people, 5 of whom are highly skilled, well paid (but not HCEs), hourly employees. Because of their unique skill set they are often approached by competitors trying to lure them away. The employer would like to set up a Top Hat plan for these guys, but the "select group of management or HCE" language has us wondering. From the reading I've done, it seems that there is some room for interpretation about the rigidity of that language. We would be interested in hearing the thoughts of our peers.

ok - I think I know the answer but want to double check.

here is the situation:

Mutliple Employer Plan; calendar year

Allows for Employers to choose safe harbor match to pass 401k testing

Plan uses prior year testing for non safe harbor Employers

Safe harbor Employer ceases safe harbor match as of 04/30/2011 with proper 30 day notice to participant, participant didn't defer in 2010 making the prior year NHCE 0%.

When the end of 2011 arrives we know this Employer will be subject to 401k testing and since the Plan uses prior year testing that will mean a refund of all deferrals for the owner on the ADP test side.

Does he get to keep his safe harbor match as long as the ACP portion passes?

Company is a partnership offering health insurance to partners. Plan is fully insured.

Can the company require the partners to pay more for their insurance than the insurance company is charging the partnership in premiums? For example, the insurance company sets a participant's premium at $100 a month, but the company charges the participant $105 a month and keeps the $5 for administrative costs.

This would be similar to the additional 2% employers can charge for COBRA premiums for administrative expenses -- but outside of the COBRA context. (Is the 2% surcharge under COBRA an exception to something that is not otherwise allowed, or is it a cap on administrative surcharges that are otherwise allowed?)

This situation involves partners in a partnership, but if there is any insight with respect to an employer-employee relationship, I'd be interested in hearing thought on that as well.

Thanks in advance.

I am in great need of advice regarding whether or not my situation is illegal or a sham termination. I would greatly appreciate anyone who is willing to lend an opinion!

Based on Rev. Rul. 2008-40 and 2011-1, you can avoid income tax on transfers from a U.S. qualified plan to a Puerto Rico qualified plan as long as that transfer takes place by the end of 2011. The articles I've seen on this issue dealing with these Rev. Rulings also indicate that you can avoid qualification issues if you make a transfer within this window. My question is whether there are any qualification issues if you simply continue to cover a Puerto Rico employee under the U.S. plan without making such a transfer.

There are 3 participants in a DB plan: (1) Owner, (2) mother of owner, and (3) one employee

401(a)(26) requires the plan to benefit the greater of 40% or 2 employees.

Question: Can the 2 employees be the Owner and his mother?

Question: Is there any farmily attribution problem here?

Thanks for all responses.

Participant wants to take a hardship withdrawal for tuition expenses, room & board for living off-campus plus estimated utilities & meal costs. We have the invoice from the college for the tuition costs, so that's covered. Not sure about the rest. I found some information on the limitations for room & board expenses (allowance provided under Federal financial aid programs).

Anyone have details on exactly what the limitations are for room & board expenses both on- and off-campus? Are estimated amounts for utilities & meals okay?

Thanks for your input!

A claimant has gone through the process of requesting retirement plan benefits and is now up to the point where there will be a hearing. My only involvement is to watch and learn, so I have nothing at stake here. I was told that no court reporter or other mechanism for recording what goes on at the hearing is necessary. The claimant (or the attorney) makes his or her case verbally and then the Plan Administrator responds in writing at a later date. It's as simple as that. It just seems weird to me that there's nothing on the record. For those of you who have participated in this type of hearing before, is that correct?

Company A sponsors a SIMPLE IRA. Company A has been purchased by Company B through a stock purchase. Company B sponsors a safe harbor 401k plan. Company A will continue to maintain the SIMPLE IRA for its employees through the end of this year and then give notice that the SIMPLE IRA will cease 12/31/2011. For the employees of Company A who have not satisfied the two year requirement to rollover their SIMPLE IRA to the 401k plan, can they just keep their money in the SIMPLE until two years is up? In other words, does the clock continue to tick on the 2 year requirement even when the SIMPLE IRA is not actively receiving any contributions?

Additionally, the 2 year requirement does not apply to employees over age 59.5, correct?

Does anyone know where to locate a comprehensive list of "denial codes" that will need to be included in an adverse benefit determination (for non-grandfathered plans)? Thanks.

I have a client with two companies that are a controlled group. They would like the employees to qualify separately for participation for each co. So if an individual works 1000 hrs for Co. A, they can participate on comp earned with A. But if the same individual also works 400 hours with Co. B, comp earned with B would not be eligible for deferral b/c individual does not meet eligibility with B. any issues with that arrangement or does a controlled group rule override this type of eligibility arrangement?

I left a company back in 3/2008 and had an open 401k loan at the time. The company never issued a distribution notice or 1099R and when I contacted Principal Financial (administrator), they told me the company still had me listed as an active employee & never reported my end of employment.

After a 28 month period, I returned to the company & they immediately started my loan payroll deduction for the same amount I had previously paid. When I looked up my plan on Principal's website, the loan payoff date had been extended to compensate for the time I was gone. Now, after being back with this company for close to a year, they reamortized my loan using the original payoff date, increasing my payroll deduction by over 325% (totaling over $920/mo). This was done with absolutely no notice to me.

I asked if they could allow me to continue paying the loan at the original rate & adjust the payoff date. They said they could not & my only option was to either pay the increased amount or default on the loan. Is it legal for them to do this?

Can a Plan start an EACA mid-year but just not have the 6-month ADP/ACP excess rule applied for the short year but still have the permissible withdrawal rule applied for that year?

a 10 participant plan that was to be terminated circa 2005, but never did, started a new plan in 2005, in which active participants rolled their funds over into the new plan at that time. only terminated participants were left in original plan. Sponsor did not terminate, file 5500's past 2005, or restate for EGTRRA. DFVC has been done and VCP filing has been submitted. IRS has sent a letter regarding VCP filing and asks to list those PPA amendments that were not timely adopted. They give a 3 page list. My first inkling is to check all of them, however this is a standardized profit sharing plan and a lot of the provisions would not apply (Comply with 411(b)(5), Implement EACA/QACA. comply with Codes 436, 432, etc). Many standardized plans offered default elections and would not have elected amendments such as HEART. However, should we choose them as "failing to timely adopt" since the sponsor could have elected to over ride such defaults?

Without actually performing the calculations of plan termination liability is there any reasonable way to estimate the PVAB for participants only knowing the Funding Target for a frozen plan? Plan Sponsor thinks difference b/t Funding Target and Market Value of Assets is what they would need to fund to terminate the Plan and pay everyone out 100% of their benefit. This is not the case, I know typically the lump sums are greater than the ongoing liability. Is there a "rule of thumb" about how much?

I have a situation where an employee was hired in january 2010

he worked 1000 hours and then terminated in August 2010

he then in February 2011

Eligibility is 1 year of service. A year of service is defined as a 12 moth period in which you complete 1000 hours.

Entry dates are quarterly

When does he enter the plan. We have someone in our office that says this employee, when rehired, comes right into the plan, b/c he had 1000 hours within 12 months... even though he didn't make it 12 months and didn't make it to an entry date..the fact that he had 1000 hours is all that was needed

Others say, when rehired , he comes in and has to meet the eligibility requirements again...because he never met the eligibility before terminating. ..meaning he did not work 12 months with 1000 hours

Who is correct?

I have a plan that is a nonamender for GUST and also failed 401(a)(4) for 2008. Should their be two VCP submissions - one for each failure with it's own sanction and filed together? Or or the two independent of each other?