Hello!  I work for a private university.  Our 403b match is different based on age.  If you are under the age of 35 and have worked less than a certain number of years you are eligible for 4% (once you complete a certain number of years you're eligible for the full match).  If you are over the age of 35 you are automatically eligible for 8%.

Is it legal to create that type of rule?  Seems like it favors employees over the age of 35 - who more than likely are also making more money than the younger employees.

Putting together a training with an IRS/5500 update. Any word on the status of the Compliance questions?  I know they are n/a for 2016, I'm just wondering if there is anything published about when perhaps they might be effective.  Any official guidance, etc.?

How long has electronic renewal been an option for ERPA renewals?  I renewed today through Pay.gov and I don't remember that being an option last time I renewed. Easy to fill out and got a confirmation that both my form and payment had been accepted   

Hi all,

question about what the 560 says about excess employer contributions.

560 says excess contributions are treated as gross income in the year received and treated as contributions by the employee to his or her sep ira.

so I would assume those funds would be included in the employees gross income and then, Does that mean those funds are treated as a traditional contribution? Since they are no longer employer contributions, is that deductible up to my traditional limits?

"Excess contributions are included in the em­ ployee's income for the year and are treated as contributions by the employee to his or her SEP­IRA. For more information on employee tax treatment of excess contributions, see Pub­ lication 590­A."

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p560.pdf Page 6

Thanks!

I hope I can find an answer to the following scenario:

A partnership establishes a SEP for the partners and the plan calls for the partnership to contribute the maximum allowable amount for each partner.  Partnership contributes 20% to each of the five partners.  However, each partner has differing unreimbursed partner expenses that may reduce the max contribution amount on an individual partner basis.  These UPE are not reported to the partnership.  I think that each partner is required to determine if they have excess contributions and remove those contributions and associated earnings from their account.  However, this can result in differing contribution rates for the individual partners so that one partner might end up with a 7% contribution rate and another maxes out his contribution at 20% because he had no UPEs.  Is it the responsibility of each individual partner to remove the excess contributions caused by the UPEs or is the partnership somehow responsible for recalculating the percent contribution based upon the individual partner UPES to determine the lowest percentage allowed that would equalize all the partners percentages.  It's a tough question for the partnership, but does occur fairly frequently.  I would appreciate any guidance from the group.

I am an enrolled actuary and I work as a pension actuary for a financial services company that acts as a custodian for plan assets. At this company when a plan spsonor makes a deposit the financial operations department notifies the actuary that a depsoit was received and then the actuary needs to submit instructions to the financial services operations people telling them to invest the funds per the plan spsonors investment directives on file. Our company has 4 days to turn this around per the service agreement. Ignoring the fact that executing financial transactions is a poor use of our time, my concern is that because the actuary has discretion on when to invest the funds that maybe it crosses the line into having "authority or control over plan assets" and the actuary becomes a fiduciary. That may be a stretch but I am a little uncomfortable and I would like to know what others think. Thanks.  

in 2015 employee (and owner)  defers 18,000 and the company matches 6,000.  In March of 2016 CPA calculates, has the Company contribute, and deducts on the 2015 return 37,500.  The total allocated to employee is 61,500.  415 limit is 53,000 (under age 50).  i am treating the full 37,500 contributed in 2016 but allocated and tax deducted in 2015 as a 2015 annual addition.

Plan uses Oppenheimer document, which says if there is an excess allocation must correct using EPCRS.

EPCRS provides if excess allocations are attributable to elective deferrals must be distributed.

Client and broker want to take the position that the excess allocation was only due to the 2016 contribution allocated to 2015 (employer monies) and that no deferrals should be distributed.  My remembrance from technical readings is timing of the contribution does not matter, but only if a contribution was credited to a limitation year.

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Hello,  I am brand new here and hoping someone has encountered my question before. 

Would the IRS statutes that refer to multiple employer plans take precedence over the plans that are within, Gov't plans? (401(a) plans)

We have two government plans that are operated under one administrator that has multiple employer status. Vesting would be treated as separate for each employer if I refer to gov't statutes only, however, someone is telling me that the under the multiple employer status vesting would be combined between the two employers.  Which should I follow?  Thanks!

Kelly

Any prevalence information on whether companies administer their PTO sell feature inside or outside a cafeteria plan?

Just curious - since I haven't been involved with many plans where restructuring has been used for a plan that otherwise fails Average Benefits  Percentage Test, I don't have a solid frame of reference. For those of you who have done a lot of it, it seems like much of the time it just won't work anyway. Is that a fair statement? Or do you find that (much, most?) of the time it does work? Obviously it works sometimes - just had one that worked nicely, but that may just be good luck with a particular population.

I've got a typical ASG - 2 lawyers O and P who each have their own sole-prop practice, and they have a partnership where their receptionist and other staff are paid from (and they receive small K-1s from it).  O owns 1/3 and P owns 2/3 of the partnership.

When I split the pension cost for the staff, does that also affect the Schedule C income because this is treated as one employer (i.e., add the Schedules C and K-1 together and then subtract the portion of staff contribution)?  Or do I reduce only the K-1 compensation and then add the Schedule C compensation?  Or is it the same thing and I'm just overthinking this?  Thanks.

Here's the situation.  TPA wants to hire its own subsidiary as a care coordinator for the health plans it serves. I'm trying to figure out:

• Whether we have a prohibited transaction.
• Whether an exemption applies.
• Whether the arrangement needs to be mentioned in the TPA agreement.  In other words, if the TPA agreement includes care coordination services, must it be separately disclosed that these services are provided through the subsidiary and what portion of the fees go to the subsidiary?

It doesn't really seem to me that the prohibited transaction rules should apply in this case.  After all, there is no more potential for abuse if the TPA uses a subsidiary for this than if it performs the services itself.  However, I'm concerned about Information Letter 1998-02-19 and Prohibited Transaction Exemption 93-62, which treat the selection of health care services as a fiduciary function.

I will never do it again unless I absolutely have to.  It has been excruciating.  I have been through 2 of them now and each has been extremely difficult.

Participant sends in a Hardship request for "Expenses for the repair of damages to my principal residence that would qualify as a casualty deductions".   The proof submitted looks like he is not just repairing the damage but making major upgrades to his home.  Is this allowed?  

50-49 vote in favor of resolution of disapproval.  House has already voted in favor, the bill will now go to President Trump to sign into law.

A county government has dual status. Their "403(b)" was in place prior to ERISA. They provide matching contributions, but claim the 403(b) plan is a non-ERISA plan. Is there a grandfather rule that would allow a 403(b) to be non-ERISA even if employer contributions occur? Would it have to be established before ERISA was enacted?

Could you write a 457(f) document for a non-profit to provide installments for the distribution and make each installment subject to a risk of FF?  i.e.  John Doe gets 50k per year say for 5 years.  He is 60 now.  He has to be employed at age 65 to get 1/5 of the balance of his account.  Next, he has to be employed at 66 to get 1/4 of his balance.  etc...

I am thinking no, but??

Can you exclude catchups from SH Match? 

We have a company that is a P.A.  One of the owners is asking if he can take a smaller Profit Sharing so he can get a bigger bonus this summer.

Is that a deemed CODA?

On 12/5/2016 the participant took a hardship distribution

On 12/27/2016 the participant terminated employment 

Employee is rehired on 3/28/2017

Under the terms of the plan, the participant re-enters the plan as of his re-employment date.

the questions is - does the prior 6 month suspension remain in place and the participant can not defer until June 2017? Or, is the 6 months suspension disregarded since the participant terminated and then was rehired.

Thanks