If HCEs are not eligible for the SH contribution are they required to receive the notice.  Everything I can find just says "to those eligible to participate".  Is that "eligible to participate in the SH benefit"?

I am thinking of adding it to my default one person plan design so that when the sole prop calls me today and says I have an employee (who I never heard about before) entering 7/1, it doesn't hose up the entire plan for the year.  (Of course it doesn't help the guy who says, "employee who entered 4/1")

No consequences to Plan operation/Notice requirement until a Maybe Notice is required prior to entry of the new Employee.  Kind of a chicken soup thing.

Thanks

A participant in a 401k who is 76 years old died in 2018. The spouse was the primary beneficiary. She wants to rollover the funds into her own 401k plan and treat it as her own. As she is the spouse, I believe she can do that. However, the question is: does an RMD have to be done from the original 401k before the rollover?

Thank you.

I have a controlled group. 

Two of the companies had contributions that were withheld from a participants pay, but didn't make it on the payroll they sent us.  It's very small amounts.  We are giving interest and filing a 5330.   Since it's two different companies, I assume that two 5330's are needed.  Is that correct? 

For one point about the design of a retirement plan, a recent BenefitsLink discussion shows differing views about which set of provisions is likelier to meet a sponsor’s interest, and perhaps about how the point might be explained in a plan-design discussion (or instead presumed).

https://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/62281-that-a-retirement-plan-required-no-spouses-consent-for-a-distribution-before-the-participants-death-meant-a-surviving-spouse-gets-no-portion-of-a-27-million-benefit/&page=2

That started me thinking about a practical point:

The time available for a plan-design discussion might be limited—whether by a client’s availability or attention span, a client’s choice to limit a practitioner’s time billed, or a practitioner’s choice to limit time to sustain profitability for a fixed fee or an assumed cost.

If time is limited so it’s not feasible to discuss all plan-design choices, how does a practitioner leading the discussion decide which topics should get little or no attention (and instead fall into some presumed norm)?

I'm having difficulty finding any guidance on this - we have a 401(k) plan with an automatic enrollment provision (ACA) and the client did not provide the required notice for the past two years.  They have been operating according to the provisions in the plan document, they just neglected to provide their employees with the notice.

Is there a "correction" for this?  Maybe anyone that was auto enrolled would need to be given the option to remove their funds?

Our client is an LLC taxed as a partnership. There are 4 partners ( all family members). We received their copies of their K-1's. All 4 reflected the same amount of earnings in Box 14. A= $321,347. C=$658,390. Is this normal? Do I use the same amount to for everyone? Or do I divide those numbers by 4 to get the individual earnings for them?

Also, would I add A & C together?

Thank you! 

Can a 401(k) plan have a tiered match contribution based on service?  There will be no HCEs eligible to be in this plan.  For example:

·         0% match for individuals with less than 1 year of service

·         100% match up to 1% of EE contribution for 1-3 years of service

·         100% match up to 2% of EE contribution for 3-5 year of service

·         100% match up to 3% of EE contribution for 5-10 year of service

·         100% match up to 4% of EE contribution for 10-20 year of service

·         100% match up to 5% of EE contribution for 20+ years of service

Can a non ERISA steeple church 403b plan use a definition of spouse that does not reflect the Windsor amendment to DOMA? So can a church plan define Spouse to mean a person of the opposite sex to whom the participant is married, but then state that for RMD purposes, Spouse reflects the changes to DOMA as of June 26, 2013? The document to be used is a pre-approved plan that does not define Spouse in this manner, and we would have to write this definition into the plan, which could take it out of pre-approved status which I guess is the second issue. First issue is the legality of using this definition in a church plan.

Thank you!

Employer maintains a profit sharing plan, no employees.

Box 1 of his W-2 includes health insurance premiums; boxes 3 & 5 do not.

Employer wants max deduction (and who doesn't?)

Would his 25% be based on Box 1 or Box 3?

Accountant seems to think Box 3.

7-31-17 year end plan

Participant over 50 deposits max  DC plan limit profit sharing during the plan year as well as $8000 salary deferrals.

Per calendar-year his deferrals are below the calendar year catch-up limit each year, however during the plan year they are as stated above. 

Because he exceeded the 415 limit instead of the 402(g) limit, must I limit his catch-up to 6,000 for the plan year?  Or may I assign the "catch-up" contributions to the year they were deferred  (thus, allowing all of his contributions for the plan year).

Most threads I have seen regarding fiscal year catch-up are tied to 402(g) limits and ADP corrections, so thank you in advance for answering if previously discussed.

A client filed a 5330 to pay an excise tax for unpaid minimum contributions.  The client received a Notice CP-220 that assesses an adjustment to the excise tax.  We have no idea how the IRS got its numbers, and we want to appeal.  There is nothing on the face of the notice that explains how to appeal.  Does anybody know how?  Do we just write back to the address on the notice and say we want to appeal?  

A Plan became an Eligible Automatic Contribution Arrangement (EACA) under IRC 414(w) effective January 1, 2015. The plan document states that only employees hired after January 1, 2015 are covered employees under the EACA.

Several years later, the plan sponsor determines that they now want to amend the plan document effective October 1, 2018 to change the covered employees under the EACA to be all employees that do not have an affirmative deferral rate election. This is sometimes referred to as a lookback or sweepback. As a result of the lookback, employees that were hired prior to January 1, 2015 and who have never made an affirmative deferral rate election will now become covered employees and enrolled at the plan's default deferral rate.

It does not appear that Treasury Regulation 1.414(w)-1(b)(3)(iii)(A) directly addresses the EACA notice requirement for the those who will receive their initial EACA notice as a result of the lookback . When must employees impacted by the October 1, 2018 lookback receive their initial EACA Notice?

1) Within a reasonable period of time prior to the beginning of the 2018 plan year (ie - in November, 2017). If this is the correct interpretation, it virtually eliminates mid-year lookbacks to EACA's as the decision by the plan sponsor to implement a lookback won't be made by that time.

OR

2) Within a reasonable period of time prior to the date that the employees with no affirmative deferral rate election become a covered employee under the EACA (ie - within a reasonable period of time prior to October 1, 2018).

I have a new client that is a governmental entity that sponsors a 457(b) plan for its employees.  An employee has attained normal retirement age under the plan and retired.  He did not take a distribution at retirement.  Four months later, the individual is re-employed in a part-time position which makes him ineligible for contributing to the 457(b) plan.  The employee has now asked for a distribution from the 457(b) plan. 

The plan provides that upon severance from employment with the entity, a participant shall be entitled to receive a distribution of his account.  Severance from employment is defined as a voluntary or involuntary termination of employment. 

The regulations under 457 provide that an employee has a severance from employment with the eligible employer if the employee dies, retires, or otherwise has a severance from employment with the eligible employer, and directs one to see the 401(k) regulations for additional guidance concerning severance from employment. 

Because of the individual’s status as a rehired employee, and the reference to the 401(k) regulations, I am concluding that his rehired status makes him ineligible for a distribution now.  I am being told that in the past the client has taken the position that a “retirement” is sufficient to allow for subsequent distributions, even while the individual is working for the entity as a part-time employee.  I can’t find any guidance on 457 plans that would allow for a distribution based on the prior retirement when the individual is currently working for the entity, and I am wondering if the group knows of any unofficial IRS guidance on this issue.   

Brain cramp - PS has 1 YOS/1,000 eligibility. SH nonelective is provided to anyone eligible to defer, which is everyone. If someone has never worked 1,000 hours, does the fact that they receive 3% nonelective require that they receive gateway? I'm saying no, but second-guessing myself...

P.S. - my thinking for "no" is that they can be disaggregated as statutorily excludable.

I had to do an 11-g amendment to give benefits to one person.  Do I have to create an SMM for her?

I would be curious to know if anyone has receiving notification from their Document Provider, as to when the software will be available, to restate DB and CB Plans. Specifically, VS or Prototype.

We have a participant in one of our 401K plans that is requesting a hardship withdrawal that does meet the safe harbor criteria, but he has an outstanding loan.

Does this preclude him from a hardship distribution, since the current loan has not been repaid?

A few 401k participants withdrew their accounts on December 28. They subsequently received a dividend in their 401k account < $100 on December 31.

Is there anything to support saying that they are not in the 5500 participant count as of  the subsequent 1/1/XX?  I assume no, but I wanted to see if anyone has run into this situation in that including them in the count will trigger an audit.

A plan sponsor  has participants that missed 5 months of deferral opportunity due to a technical payroll glitch.

The Sponsor wants to know if the Rolling Three-Month exception can apply to the last 3 months of the missed 5 months, where they would only have to fund a 25% QNEC for the first 2 months and not for the full 5 months.

Rolling Three-Month Exception. The Revenue Procedure converts the existing three-month exception into a rolling three-month provision. So long as elective deferrals commence within three months of when they should have commenced – regardless of where that falls during a plan year – an employer need not make up the missed deferrals. (

can the other spouse if not covered by their own employer plan have their own regular IRA and is it fully deductible ?