Hi all,

I have a 401k plan where participant terminated employment in early 2018 and received a taxable distribution in  2018.  His pre tax deferral, Roth contribution and match  exceeded his compensation for the year resulting in 415 issue.

In looking at EPCRS per our VS in 415 excess situation, it seems the correction is to distribute the funds plus earnings to him.  We already did this.  Client wants to self correct since the total excess is under $100. Am I missing something,  Is there anything we need to do other than document?

Thanks for any help!

We are in the process of taking over a plan that is currently a QACA Safe Harbor plan. Client would like to switch to a traditional safe harbor. Can this be done?

I work for a large employer with a DB plan which bases benefits on up to 45 years of service.  Our participants also seem to love their jobs too much to retire.  Therefore, we have several active participants (who are NOT highly-paid) who are over 70 1/2, continuing to work full-time, and whose accrued benefits have exceeded 415.  We have been advised by our attorneys that the appropriate way to handle this is to begin periodic payments, even though the participants continue to work.  This is a new concept for me and I think I missed a regulation change somewhere along the way.  With previous employers our practice was to stop accruals as necessary and make distributions from a non-qualified plan. to make the participants whole.  Can someone provide a little history on this and direct me to the appropriate regs?  Thank you!  

Participant enrolled and deferrals withheld and timely deposited.  In September the employee reached $18,500. Payroll stopped his deferral. The  participant was over 50. Due to a  payroll glitch, the catch up contributions were not withheld.  In January the employer realized the error.  They have corrected the payroll issue.

Any action required by the employer for these "missed" deferrals?  The employer does not make a match contribution.  

Company A acquired Company B in an asset sale in late 2018.  Company B maintained a 401(k) plan that was not assumed by Company A as part of the sale.  Nonetheless, following the closing date, Company A has continued to make contributions (both employer contributions and elective deferrals) to Company B's plan, which were accepted by the TPA.

It seems to me that this scenario results in countless technical violations, but little (if any) harm to participants, and that the least problematic solution would be for Company A to assume sponsorship of the plan, retroactive to the date of close.  I'm aware that such an approach should involve a VCP application, though I doubt the parties will be interested in the time and expense involved in such an application.

Any problems with that proposed solution (aside from the risk associated with not going through VCP) that I'm missing?  Alternatively, are there cleaner approaches that people have used or seen?

Plan document calls for safe harbor matching contribution to be determined on a payroll v payroll basis (with no true up).  True up calculated for 2016 and 2017 and deposited by Plan Sponsor.  How do we correct?  

We were going to forfeit the excess amount due to true up with earnings and file under EPCRS.  

Anyway to avoid this?  Suggestions greatly appreciated.  

My apologies if the answer is obvious and I'm just not seeing it.

The plan provides for a discretionary match which the plan sponsor may make after the plan year has ended (1000 hours and last day required).

The plan sponsor wants to wait until later in the year to decide whether or not to make the match, let's say after March 15th.  The plan fails the ADP test, and if match is allocated pro-rata over deferrals will most likely fail the ACP test as well.

If the match is discretionary, is it possible to allocate the match by reducing the match to the HCEs sufficient to avoid an ACP failure and possible excise tax?  I do not see anything in the document that indicates one way or the other.

Appreciate the assistance.

Is anybody aware of a publication that has a good discussion of the difference in taxation between annuities in general and the simplified method of taxing annuity payments from a qualified plan under IRC Section 72(d)?

Plan acquired entities with 400 new participants during the course of 2018 - all hired 2/1/18

Plan is recognizing service from date of hire for the 400 new participants

In 401k testing, I am excluding all those who do not meet statutory eligibility

Do I count the participants I'm recognizing past service for in the non-excludable test

It seems like I would not since their hire dates with the employer do not meet statutory eligibility regardless of the past service that is being recognized

Thank you

We have a client that wants to add a Voluntary After Tax component to a Safe Harbor Match plan (not Roth).  The SHM will be the only employer contribution.

The top heavy regs say if a plan consists SOLELY of a CODA and the SH, then the plan won't be top heavy.

Does the addition of the VAT mean top heavy is back in play?

An employer wants to terminate his 401k plan in 2019 and start a SIMPLE at the beginning of 2020.  Can the employee 401k accounts be rolled immediately into the SIMPLE or is there a 2 year wait?  If a 2 year wait, then if the owner and/or participants wanted to have their 401k money in the SIMPLE, they would have to park the money in an IRA, wait to years, then move it to the SIMPLE, does that sound acceptable?

Thank you

Client went through high turnover this year.

2 HCEs

1 NHCE > 1000 hrs

3 NHCEs terminated - 1 > 1000 hrs, 1 900 hrs, 1 < 500 hrs.  All left months apart, voluntarily.  Two were partially vested.

2 HCEs defer

3 NHCEs defer

HCE owners want to max his allocation.  Profit-Sharing has last day/1000 hr condition.

I think I have to add back 2 terminated NHCEs to pass 410b

Wrinkle - Plan has "New Comparability" checked as allocation. Historically, allocation has been Integrated.  I think I can allocate as if "integration" was check on the AA.

Just want to make sure my "bad news" is solid.

Greetings:

Plan sponsor is in the process of winding down and terminating all of its benefit plans. All plans have 100+ participants. It came to our attention that over the past number of years, plan sponsor had been filing only ONE Form 5500 for ALL of its ancillary benefits (AD&D, LTD, Life Insurance, PPO, etc) in addition to its partially-insured health plan (medical & RX drug). Meanwhile, a (mega) wrap plan document was never in place bundling these benefits.

It is our position that a retroactive wrap document cannot be used to retroactively bundle benefits which were previously and incorrectly reported under a single Form 5500 (although it does permit a single filing under DFVCP and help with a single $4,000 penalty).

That said, is it possible that this is an Form 5500 amendment issue (since a Form 5500 was in fact filed each year, just incorrectly and for the wrong plan name) and thus inappropriate to be filed under DFVCP? I am more inclined to recommend correction under DFVCP since I see this as a non-filer issue (Form 5500 that was filed was under a non-existent plan name) and client would rather pay the $4,000 filing fee and rest assured that the matter has been put to bed. 

Lastly, since only one Form 5500 was filed covering both (a) the partially-insured benefit plan (which has an ERISA plan doc), and (b) The fully-insured ancillary benefits (which does not have a plan document), which do you think is the better course of action:

(1) Include both the partially-insured benefit plan (which has its own plan document) and the filly insured anciliary benefits into a mega wrap plan document and file only one Form 5500 under DFVCP

(2) Exclude the partially-insured benefit plan from the mega wrap document (so just bundle the ancilary benefits) and file 2 seperate Form 5500s. 

Thoughts and Feedback would be most appreciated. Thank you!

i have a doctor client who is a minority owner in a dialysis center. they send patients to the center for treatment. it seems to meet the definition of an A-org/FSO affiliated service group but this is problematic for me.  the center does dialysis for many other doctor groups. it is also owned by a majority owner. what if there were other doctor groups that owned a piece?  how could the center be part of two affiliated service groups?  am i missing something?

Did the IRS issue some sort of guidance or notice in 2017 effective for 2018 that restricted what assumptions could be used in a beginning of year valuation? Specifically did they state that for a participant you must assume 2018 expected compensation and expected hours must be the actual 2017 compensation and hours?

Tax-exempt employer established 403(b) plan effective 7/1/1998, and amended and restated effective 7/1/1999 on a individually designed plan document.  Document was not updated to comply with final 403(b) regulations, EGTRRA, PPA, HEART, and WRERA.

What corrective action should the employer take to address these document failures?

Background: Client is in the middle of selling a division and will be keeping those employees in it's medical plan for the rest of the year to avoid disruption, thus creating a self-insured MEWA with two employers for this short period. 

I'm trying to determine the potential risks and requirements of keeping these employees in the plan for the rest of the year under Tennessee law.  So far I've found the applicable rules and regulations (Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0780-01-76), but I'm a little confused as to if these regs apply to a two employer MEWA because 1) the regs say they apply to "self-insured qualified" MEWAs and 2) then go on to define a qualified MEWA as consisting of ten employers.  

Anyone have any insight here?  Would really appreciate it - feel like I'm just spinning my wheels at this point. 

A 403(b) plan currently has 3 vendors and would like to move to a single vendor arrangement. However, they are hesitant to make any drastic changes from a participant perspective. Are there any clear issues with them doing a phased approach and moving to a single vendor going forward for new employees only? And is that something that could be amended in their plan document? Any insights would be appreciated. 

If a plan has a per-payroll fully vested match subject to deferral withdrawal restrictions, is the match deemed to be a QMAC? 

A plan sponsor's DB plan has been hard frozen for a few years. It has no early retirement and no subsidized benefits. Last month they changed their 401(k) plan to only provide allocations of deferrals and safe harbor match for 2019. Is the 401(k) plan top-heavy exempt, or does the mere existence of the frozen DB plan eliminate the top-heavy exemption?