Plan fails 2008 ACP test. Refund required was $80; it didn't get made. Using the 1 to 1 correction plan sponsor can make the refund and then make a qnec of that same amount. The qnec should be allocated pro-rata, based on compensation, to all eligible NHCE's. The difficulty is that there are close to 100 eligible NHCE's. Is there a deminimus amount before you have to allocate to a participant?

Thanks in advance for any guidance.

The Q & A provides an example where the plan could be amended to allow in-plan Roth conversions for pre-tax accounts at age 59 1/2, without otherwise permitting a distribution of these amounts from the plan. I'm interpreting that this would also apply to sources other than a pre-tax account (e.g. match, profit sharing). I would think that the Notice would be more explicit if the intention is to limit a conversion only option to the pre-tax account.

I need to find a reference that specifically states that an Employer can sponsor more than one 401(k) plan simultaneously.

I am taking over a DB plan that provides a death benefit of the greater of policy proceeds less c.s.v plus Theoritical Reserve, or the PVAB and unfortunately I have very little experience with this method of providing life insurance in a plan. There will be 2 new entrants in the plan this year, and the plan will be purchasing policies for each of them.

What assumptions must be used to calculate the Theoritical Contribution for this purpose? Is it required to use the plan's AE, or can I use any "reasonable" assumptions? I would think that it would have to be consistent from participant to participant, so will I have to go back to the prior administrator and request their methodology?

Is a traditional 410k plan with salary deferral money only (no employer match or NEC) subject to top heavy testing and minimum contribution requirements??

Some employers want to limit the availability of In-Plan Roth conversions to only active employee’s eligibility for in-service distributions. The reason for this is that once terminated employees move their funds to Roth, they are more likely to leave the balance in the plan for at least 5 years to get the tax advantages and it could be difficult to find terminated participants 5 or more years later.

In the latest newsletter from Sal Tripodi, he seemed to indicate there would be an issue if a terminated employee's balance was over $5,000 and couldn't be forced out, but wanted to roll the account within the plan to the Roth and was not permitted the same right, it would be "like the participant would be forced out" because taking the balance out of the plan would be the only way the participant could get the funds converted. Also may create a benefits, rights, and feature issue? Is anyone else doing In-Plan Roth conversions and if so are you limiting the availability to active employees eligible for distribution?

Does anyone have updated information (or links) on what states will permit self-funded nongrandfathered plans to participate voluntarily in state external review?

Thanks in advance.

Does workers compensation count as compensation (in which the ee could have deferrals withheld and contributions allocated based on that comp)? I am 99.9% sure that it does not since it is not being paid by the ER.

Thanks,

If a plan amends to allow "in-plan" Roth conversions, can they exclude terminated participant from the option? Any thoughts appreciated.

I was wondering if it would be possible to avoid IRC 105/125 discrimination by just creating a different plan for the highly compensated. This doesn't seem like it would work, but the sections just refer to a single plan, which suggests that you could have a different plan with different benefits. Can't different groups like collectively bargained employees have different benefits than salaried nonunion? So why can't salaried nonunion have different groups? What am I missing? Thanks in advance.

Employer A & Employer B have common ownership, but not sufficient to be a controlled group. They aren't an affiliated service group either. They each sponsor their own plan.

Every so often employees will switch between the two companies. Is there any issue with each plan recoginizing service with the other employer? These aren't really predecessor employers, but I don't see an issue with it. Want to make sure thay I am not missing something though.

Thanks in advance for any guidance.

What if health plan A eliminates spouse coverage if the spouse has another available group health plan? Or eliminates coverage for spouse and/or dependents entirely? Does this cause health plan A to lose grandfathered status?

Elimination of coverage for groups of individuals/beneficiaries does not seem to be one of the listed events that causes the loss of grandfathered status. Yet, that result is counter-intuitive to me, since that would permit individuals to be dropped until the plan becomes, for example, for officers only--yet, if it still a grandfathered plan despite the elimination of eligibility, then it would not be subject to the non-disrimination rules even though it became a discriminatory plan.

What am I missing?

If a Plan has QJSA and an RMD must be taken, does the participant need to complete a form (with spousal consent) or can the recordkeeper force the RMD?

If the Plan Document's definition ofcompensation is W-2 + 401k deferrals, and a participant is haveing pre-tax contributions deducted from his paycheck to go towards an HSA, are those deductions added back into compensation as well for employer contribution calculations?

Disclaimer - I do not work in the Documents department. Am wondering if an SMM would be required for an amendment such as the Final 401(k) Amendment or The Mandatory Distribuiton Amendment?

Thx

If a Plan has QJSA and an RMD must be taken, does the participant need to complete a form (with spousal consent) or can the recordkeeper force the RMD?

Question - Is spousal consent required for a RMD?

Can someone confirm this for me: A plan only gets one bite at the apple to make an assessment of withdrawal liability. In other words, if you assess at 1 million, you cannot go back and assess at 1.5 million.

Please provide citations.

I hope this gets explained correctly, but I'll give it my best shot. I have a client with a 401 (k) Plan. The other day I get a call from "an employee" of my client that wants to enroll in the plan and I cannot locate this guy on the plan's census. This client manages real estate properties and the "employee" actually gets paid from a condo association of the property that is managed by the client. His paycheck comes from the association, but he is managed by my client as part of the agreement with the association. There is no employee leasing agreement. There are no related group issues.

It appears to me that this individual is an employee of the condo association, but I need to be reassured of that fact. Should there be any other questions that I need to ask my client, or is it clear that he is not an employee of my client.

Here's the scenario:

1. Disqualified person exercises put option with respect to qualifying employer securities distributed from ESOP.

2. Employer does not wish to purchase the qualifying employer securities from the disqualified person.

3. ESOP provides employer may permit trustee of ESOP to purchase the qualifying employer securities.

Question: Even though the ESOP provides the employer may permit trustee to purchase qualifying employer securities when participant exercises put option, wouldn't the trustee doing so when the participant exercising the option is a disqualified person result in a prohibited transaction? Is there a way for the trustee to honor the put option and yet avoid a prohibited transaction? Or must the employer honor the put option since the trustee may not do so?

When does the PPA restatement cycle begin? Does it begin immediately after the Cycle E for EGTRRA?