Has anyone figured out how to convert JH's year end .pdf reports to excel? We have to key the gains by hand and we have alot of JH plans. We're trying to figure out a way to cut down on keying. I know they have a TED download but you have the set up over 150 funds (via an import) into Relius. We don't care about the funds. We also do not want to import beginning and ending balances. I was just wondering what everyone else is doing.

Thanks!

A peculiar question has arisen with respect to 415 lump sums. My answer was b) but wondered whether others might have the alternative opinion and why one or the other is correct. It has been my belief that the 415 maximum lump sum has nothing to do with vesting.

A participant is 80% vested and his benefit is not limited by 415. However, his lump sum is limited as follows:

Plan actuarial equivalence 100,000

GAR minimum floor 125,000

5.5% 415 lump sum 120,000 (assume the 105% calculation is not an issue)

What lump sum is payable to the participant?

a) 80% of the greater of (100,000 or 125,000) but not to exceed 120,000

100,000

b) 80% of the lesser of (120,000 or the greater of (100,000 or 125,000))

96,000

Can a 70 1/2 year old participant contribute to Simple IRA Plans, Roth IRA's, Regular IRA's, SImple 401(k) plans, etc?

Thanks

I did a search but can't find this particular question. I have also been through both the General instructions for forms 1099 and the specific 1099-R instructions.

There is a death benefit distribution that was paid to the decedent's estate in 2007 (no beneficiary designated, no spouse, no family). It's not a huge amount...just over $3500. Participant died in 2007 - a personal return (1040) will be filed. Participant made roughly $16,000 in payroll in 2007.

I know that I use the code "4" on the 1099-R form. My question relates to the amount boxes on the form. The gross distribution is $3,500, but what do I enter into the "taxable amount" box, if anything? The box is there to check for "taxable amount not determined", but I was advised some time ago that checking that box is "frowned upon" and the Service wants the plan to make every attempt to determine the taxability of the distribution.

I know I'm probably overthinking this whole thing, but I want to be sure the forms are accurate.

per the plan document severance after separation from service is not compensation under the plan. however, what if as part of the severance agreement the employer is still paying the ee's health insurance. does that change anything? the termination date might be different.

Plan has a participant whose last day of service was just before Christmas of 2006. In early 2007 her husband got ill and she stayed home with him to care for him and then he passed. Both she and the employer were under the impression she would return to work - however, after her husband passed she had to have her own surgery and ended up not working any hours in 2007.

The employer believes she has every intent of coming back to work and he would bring her back if she does - but he cannot guarantee she will return.

Is she "retired" for purposes of the definition of the RBD? In reviewing the ERISA outline book it states there is no clear cut definition of being "retired" - other than to assume the employer-employee relationship has ceased. This participant had deferred distribuiton in prior years - but she was always considered and active employee. I just wonder if anyone has an opinion on this issue. Should she have to take the RMD or not?

does anyone have a sample?

I've dummied up a safe harbor notice the best I can, looking for any comments if I have missed anything, etc.

the highlighted parts pertain to the auto enroll requirements (unless as I say I have missed something. )

If I wait for the govt, well it might be forever.

Does anyone know when IRS will mandate amendments to IRA agreements for PPA changes? I thought IRA docs would have had to have been amended by now. Any insight is appreciated. Thank you.

In a previous thread, "cause" as a substantial risk of forfeiture was debated extensively, and I'm not trying to rehash that question. My question is, would a termination by the employer for cause be considered involuntary for purposes of the separation pay plan exemption? The question arises because the SRF rules qualify the phrase "involuntary termination" with the phrase "without cause," but the separation pay exemption rules do not use the qualifying phrase "without cause" in connection with "involuntary termination." Considering the thoroughness of the regs, it seems to me that leaving the phrase out was not an oversight and an involuntary termination with cause may qualify for the execption.

Any thoughts / comments?

There is nothing written that says a participant over 70 1/2 cannot participate in a 401k plan correct? They are just still subject to RMD's right? But they are allowed to continue deferring?

Should Roth 401(k) contributions be included in the average benefits percentage test (a la pre-tax deferrals) or are they excluded (like after tax deferrals)?

1.401(k)-1(f)(3)(i) and 402A(a)(1) state that Roth contributions can be treated as employer contributions for the purposes of 401(a) and 401(k) and the reg furthermore goes on to say that they are treated as elective contributions for the ADP test. However, what is missing is a reference to 410(b) where the average benefits percentage test is.

Thank you.

Does anyone know of any site that may allow someone to stop their RMD if return to work with same employer. Example: If someone separated after 70 1/2 (say 2006) and took a RMD in 2006, if they returned to work for the same employer in 2007, could they stop the RMD until stop working again? Would it matter whether they went back as full-time or part-time?

I want to invest some money in real estate and I do not want to take loan from any bank. Recently I have heard that investment in real estate is going to pay me much more than what I invest now. Can anybody help me in my real estate investment? I have enough amount in my IRA also. Will it be legal to invest IRA in Real estate?

We just brought on a KSOP. We learned that their attorneys advised them they could not have the safe harbor provisions for ADP/ACP if they were a KSOP, so they amended it out when they made it a KSOP. This does not sound right to me. I am not sure where to look to find the rules regarding KSOPs . Can anyone shed a little light on if this employer can have safe harbor provisions in their KSOP plan and/or where I can find citations regarding this matter?

Thank You!

I want to take my Roth funds and use them to make payments to buy my sales territory and start my own company. I would pay myself a reasonable salary and put the profits back into my Roth IRA. I would then only have to pay taxes on my salary and my profits would be tax free. right?

When I called my brokerage firm they treated it like I was borrowing from my account and told me that any withfrawal would have to be paid back in 60 or 90 days.

If I do this, is my company considered to be a not for profit firm?

Thanks

Sponsor of 401(k) plan discovers that in last 18 months it has made salary deferral and matching contributions based on a definition of compensation that is narrower than that provided in the plan document: Contributions were made on base pay & overtime, but not on "other" types of compensation such as PTO, jury duty pay, bereavement pay, etc.

Sponsor proceeds to self-correct by calculating additional amounts that would have been deferred and matched on the basis of the excluded compensation amounts.

Sponsor calculates earnings on both amounts using best rate method referenced in Rev. Proc. 2006-27, Appendix B, Section 3.01(3)(b).

Presume corrective contributions are made/allocated.

For overlapping time period Sponsor also had several late deposits of employee salary deferrals. Sponsor identifies payroll periods and amounts involved and calculates earnings using the Dept. of Labor Online Calculator recommended under the Voluntary Fiduciary Correction Program.

Sponsor calculates these amounts based on what was actually deposited (late) in the 401(k) plan, NOT on what "should" have been deposited if the Sponsor correctly had calculated deferrals (i.e. base pay & overtime PLUS PTO, jury duty pay, bereavement pay, etc.).

Query: if Sponsor calculates earnings on late deferrals based on hypothetically correct deferral amounts (based on total pay not just base pay & overtime) will participants get earnings calculated twice, given the concurrent EPCRS correction?

Shouldn't the DOL correction be based on what was actually deposited, and the "incorrect definition of compensation" problem be addressed exclusively under EPCRS?

Just wondering if anyone has encountered a similar situation.

My understanding from RP 2006-27 is that making the "lost opportunity" correction (50% of the ADP) is appropriate only when the participant wrongfully has been excluded entirely from making pre-tax deferrals or after-tax contributions to a plan. The exclusive nature of this correction method is stated in RP 2006-27 at Part III, Section 6.02(7), titled "Correction for exclusion of employees for elective contributions or after-tax employee contributions," stating: This correction principle applies solely to this limited circumstance."

So I would not apply it if, for instance, an employer was making restorative contributions to reflect that employee salary deferrals were improperly based on a definition of contribution that was narrower than that stated in the plan document. I would apply the employee's actual deferral percentage to the additional compensation to correct that operational failure, and add earnings calculated on the best rate.

I would be interested in whether readers agree that the "lost opportunity" correction is as narrow as I read it to be or if people successfully have used it in situations other than total exclusion of a participant from pre-tax deferrals or after-tax contributions.

Thanks much.

What if it is a multiple employer DC plan? Assume many unrelated employers adopt the multiple employer plan. They all invest in various pooled accounts.

Would that satisfy the "all the assets of which are available to pay the benefits claim of any eligible employee" requirement because they are pooled accounts, or because each dollar of each fund is allocated to an individual, it should be considered "seperate funding" and therefore each adopting employer should file a 5500?

I'm looking at a multiple employer PS/401(k) plan that each employer picks their own employer ps allocation and matching formula. I'm having trouble determining if they should be filing one 5500 or if each employer should file their own 5500 since all of the money is allocated to individuals?

The Plan document contains an exclusinve benefit rule that states "All contributions made by the Co-sponsor will be used for the exclusive benefit of the Participants who are Employees of the Co-sponsor and will not be used for nor diverted to any other purpose except the payment of the costs maintaining the plan."

It seems to me that each co-sponsor should be filing their own 5500. Agree?

Plan sponsor is in bankruptcy. Under the terms of the document, the sponsor is the plan administrator. Two individuals are the plan trustees. The attorney who is the bankruptcy trustee wants to terminate the plan. As recordkeeper, it is our usual procedure to require that this instruction come from the plan trustees. The bankruptcy trustee is refusing to allow the plan trustee to sign the resolution to terminate the plan and the distribution paperwork. He says that we must accept his signature because being bankruptcy trustee makes him automatically the plan trustee. (The trustees have completed distribution paperwork to receive their own balances, so we know they are around and could sign.)

I'm confident that being appointed bankruptcy trustee for the company does not make someone automatically a plan trustee. However, as bankruptcy trustee for the plan sponsor/administrator, I'm wondering if we should accept that signature on the termination resolution. I'm unsure about the distribution paperwork.

What do others do in this situation?

These are questions, I think I know the answers for, but I need back up

for the 2008 Plan year, does that mean the 2008 Applicable Mortality Table as described in RR 2007-67? Yes

for the 2008 Plan year, any db plan that defines actuarial equivalence mortality as: the "applicable mortality table" means the table referenced in IRC Section 417(e), must use the 2008 AMT as AE? Yes

Does anyone see anything wrong with these statements?

does anyone see anything wrong with having a rotating mortality table for AE?