The 401k SHPSP provides for pre-tax deferrals, SHM, PS and Davis Bacon contributions. All sources are 100% immediately vested, with the exception of the PS component.

The Davis Bacon contributions are used to offset the employer discretionary contributions (i.e. PS), and included in the general testing,etc,

In order to be able to count the DB contributions and avoid annualization rules, does the PS component needs to be 100% vested also?

Thank you!

Cash Balance Plan effective 1/1/2014.

Service prior to effective date excluded for vesting purposes.

Owner becomes vested in 2016.

When is his first RMD due?

Is anyone aware if Internal revenue bulletin 2004-26 has been updated for max J&S percentages for larger age differences with non-spouse beneficiaries? 12 years is a long time. Does there exist a table for spousal bene's with large differences?

Thx

Quickly following the recent publication of the Labor department's rule on an ERISA-governed plan's claims procedure concerning a disability benefit, some practitioners suggest that an employer design an individual-account (defined-contribution) retirement plan, if any benefit is provided because a participant is disabled, to refer to the Social Security Administration's decision on whether a person is disabled.

Leaving aside questions about an alien who is authorized to work in the United States, is there any circumstance that would make a citizen ineligible for a Social Security benefit so there could be no SSA decision to refer to?

We have an specified employee who made a subsequent change to his election. He changed his election to receive payment upon separation from service to receive payment 5 years following separation from service.

Should we pay:

1) exactly 5 years following separation, since the 6 month delay will automatically be satisfied, or

2) 5 years + 6 months following separation, since the payment would have originally been paid 6 months after separation due to the specified employee delay?

I'm inclined to go with 2, because the regulations state a subsequent change should "be deferred for a period of not less than five years from the date such payment would otherwise have been paid," and that date would have been 6 months following separation. Anyone agree/disagree?

5500 Schedule H instructions call for the reporting of the aggregate of option positions at the beginning and the end of tne plan year on Schedule H, Line 1.c.15 (Other)..is reporting of realized and unrealized gains and losses required or relevant?

A plan uses W-2 compensation but excludes fringe benefits. The plan sponsor grosses up wages for the disability insurance premiums. Is that amount that is grossed up a fringe benefit?

Potential client started business in June 2016 as a sole proprietor, wants to set up 401K/PSP by 12/31

He was told by another TPA firm if he establishes the plan 12/1/16 (I assume they are speaking of a December 1, 2016 effective date - which makes no sense), that he could only base his 25% on net schedule C from December 1- December 31.

Why would not effective date of the plan not be 1/1/2016 if the intent was to make the full 25 PSP on his self employed income?

Then again, if the full Schedule c was from June - December, why would the prospect be told that he could only do one month?

Unless, the broker did not explain the situation correctly.

Has anyone run across as good checklist of information or data request form or something like that to gather the information to review for affiliated service group status? I always feel like I'm missing something, and they tend to become these long, rambling conversations... which are great for building a relationship with the client, but not so great for making sure I get everything I need. Thanks.

Hi, I have a 403(b) plan that started making employer contributions in 2001. Never had a plan document, never filed 5500s. One participant for fifteen years, then two participants for a couple of years. I can deal with document issue. My question is, do I have to start filing 5500s back to 2001? I believe the answer is yes. Neither vendor nor participant can provide statements for the account prior to 2008. Would you file knowing what you know, i.e. the amount of contributions, pro rate earnings?

I'll be filing under the DFVC program.

Any help/ suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

somehow a thread under that particular forum took a side turn to

"if an infinite number of monkeys were sat at an infinite number of typewriters"

and whether or not all the works of Shakespeare and other such things would be produced.as far as I know this was actually tested in theory once (and only once because the results were horrific)

after many days the only thing that was produced was

The Internal Revenue Code.

May they never try that experiment again.

We were informed that a QDRO would be forthcoming on a Participant's account, so we put a lock on the account. Now the Participant is due to receive a required minimum distribution. Should we make the RMD even though the account is currently locked?

Is rev proc 2013-12 the latest EPCRS?

Also, I think i remember that it isn't the end of the world to give out a sH notice 10 days before the end of the year. Does anyone know where i read that?

We have an employer who wants to pool fund an HRA for select services, i.e., they are putting in $20,000 for their employees to pay for seeing a nurse practitioner on a first-come, first serve basis. If the $20,000 gets used up by June and some employees have not taken advantage of it then they would not receive a reimbursement for seeing a nurse practitioner later in the year. It is available to all employees. Has anyone seen this kind of arrangement before?

I think there would be some nondiscrimination issues if many HCEs used a lot of the benefits early, but I can't determine if this runs afoul of those rules.

I'm trying to improve a prospect check spreadsheet by adding DB/DC Gateway test check. But my if statement multiple conditions is not working for me. please help.

If the plan has only HCEs or NHCEs - "NO REQUIRED GT" as in the first if clause

If the plan is only DC then GT can be satisfied if all eligible ee receive at least 5% as in the 2nd if clause

Otherwise, it will perform the GT check for DB/DC combo plan (given in the below table) as in the last five if clauses.

HCE Gateway limit 1/3 to 5% 15-25% 6% 25-30% 7% 30-35% 7.50% >35%

=IF(OR(A1=0,B1=0,C1=0),"NO REQUIRED GT",

IF(AND('Table'!A2=2,U22>=0.05),"GT PASSES",

IF(AND(U22>=0.075,'Table'!A2=1),"GT PASSES",

IF(AND(T21>30,T21<=35,U22>=0.07, 'Table'!A2=1),"GT PASSES",

IF(AND(T21>25,T21<=30,U22>=0.06, 'Table'!A2=1),"GT PASSES",

IF(AND(T21>15,T21<=25,U22>=0.05, 'Table'!A2=1),"GT PASSES",

IF(AND(T21<15,U22>=T21/3),"GT PASSES",

"GT FAILED")))))))

What code is used for a Post Tax Distribution basis that is being rolled to a Roth IRA?

Thanks

I am very excited about an upgrade to the software that runs these message boards, which will be implemented over the weekend of December 31 to January 1, and will be fully functional by Monday, January 2.

In part the upgrade is driven by the fact that the current version of the software has reached the end of its technical support life from the vendor, excerpt for security patches. Even those patches are scheduled to end in about three months.

The new version of the software was first released in April of last year and has undergone a considerable number of tweaks, so I am now confident that it is fully functional and smooth.

The primary benefit under the new version is a much more modern interface, with the kind of look and feel that most people have come to expect, especially on tablets and smartphones. The buttons are larger and more carefully positioned. The "help" system has been very much improved in its language and content. The new interface feels much more intuitive and user-friendly to me.

It will be much easier to automatically follow certain content (particular topics/discussions, particular message boards), and the new version has a greatly expanded system for viewing "new" content and viewing particular kinds of activity (posts by particular members, activity in all topics you've started or contributed to, etc.).

Upon logging in, an amazing amount of information will become available merely by hovering your mouse over various links, rather than needing to click on them.

The search engine has more options available when doing an Advanced search, and seems to be faster and to provide results in a more scannable/readable format.

And it cooks a perfectly boiled egg in less than 3 minutes.

(Not.)

I wish it were possible to install the upgraded version into a beta part of benefitslink.com in order to give you the ability to easily try it out before it goes fully live on January 2, but the conversion process is basically "stand back, fasten seat belts" once the process has begun. (I have tested the conversion on a development server, though. The development server must be behind a firewall in order to prevent Google from finding the content and royally gumming things up by indexing the temporary content on the upgraded version. The conversion went through without a hitch.)

If you're comfortable with using an add-on to your browser or some other application that would let you modify the "HOSTS" file on your Windows PC so that the various links on the upgraded version running on the development server will work for you (i.e., not just the front page of the upgraded version), I'd be happy to provide you with the IP address of the development server to use in modifying your HOSTS file, and a username/password to get through a browser challenge screen on the development server. Just send me a private message using the message boards, or email me at davebaker@benefitslink.com.

We have an employee in a current USA 401k plan who has a large retirement plan account in a Mexico-based retirement plan from his previous employer (non-related to the current employer in the USA). The USA plan accepts rollovers from other plans, IRAs, etc. But since the Mexico plan is not a 401(a) type of account, I assume this could NOT be rolled over into the USA plan, is that correct? Any way he could roll it into the USA plan?

Thanks

Greetings,

Is it recommended to refrain from depositing calculated corrective contributions until after a VCP submission has been reviewed and blessed by the assigned reviewer?

On the one hand, if the IRS reviewer does not agree with the amount of the corrections, and the corrective contributions have already hit affected participants' accounts, it would make matters more difficult.

On the other hand, if the deposits are not made until after confirmation by the IRS reviewer (which could be months later), the amount of lost earnings would be for a longer period and at a greater expense to the plan sponsor.

Assuming deposits are not made until after the IRS gives its blessing on the proposed corrections, how far out is it recommended that the lost earnings be calculated to (i.e., the end period for the interest calculation)?

Thank you!

Say Employer 1 sponsors a typical NQDC account balance plan with salary deferrals and potential employer matches/contributions. A handful of executives are eligible and participate.

Employer 1 undergoes a change in control through merger into Employer 2 or by becoming a wholly owned sub of Employer 2. Employer 2 sponsors a similar NQDC account balance plan with salary deferrals and employer money.

Employer 1's plan is not terminated prior to the change in control. Employer 2 would like to terminate after the change in control (but within 12 months) and liquidate the plan balances in Employer 1's plan. The executives eligible for Employer 1's plan will then become eligible for Employer 2's plan.

The post-CIC termination regulations define the service recipient as the post-CIC employer/controlled group. They also say all plans of the post-CIC service recipient group that would be aggregated if the same person participated must also be terminated. However, the rule only applies to people actually affected by the CIC (Employer 1's employees).

Post-CIC, Employer 1's and Employer 2's plans would be aggregated if Employer 1's employees participated in Employer 2's plan.

I'm unclear on how you aggregate here: Does Employer 2's plan have to be terminated as liquidated as well?

Even if the rule only applies to people actually impacted by the CIC (all Employer 1 employees) the two plans would still be aggregated and the regulation seems to require termination of all post-CIC aggregated plans.

If that's the case, do you simply have to freeze Employer 2's plan and let it pay out over time?