Had a plan amended to now include a formerly excludable class of employees during the year. Is the compensation for the top heavy minimum for the full year or is it just for the part of the year that they were actually includable?

Our Corbel VS PT Formatted appears to me to very clearly allow me to include bonus for purposes of determining the elective deferrals, but exclude bonus for purposes of determining the match. My definition satisfies 414(s) by passing the ratio percentage test.

I think some people argue that the issue is that an NHCE who gets a bonus, where an HCE does not, is somehow getting an inferior match as a result. To me it seems contrary to logic that the IRS would insist that employees in such a plan be barred from making payroll deduction contributions. But I do believe that is how some document providers feel. Thoughts?

I'm sure this has been discussed before, so if someone could point me to earlier discussions, I would be grateful.

I know that 'retire' isn't defined under the 401(a)(9) regulations. Is there any guidance out there that might help determine whether someone who has greatly reduced his work schedule and responsibilities has retired for RMD purposes? He hasn't ever stopped working for the employer completely and has no plans to stop.

Thanks

Not sure if a plan sponsor is planning on terminating it's plan or merging it's plan, but the company has been bought. If they merge plans can they do so without merging the outstanding loan balances?

I have reviewed the 5500 SF defined benefit plan filings for the client of a

a CPA that I work with for the years 2011-2014. the sb uses a boy

val date. there is one active and one tv on the sb each year(participant count and funding target) however, the 5500sf each year only has one participant. in addition

there is a benefit statement for the term vested participant each year..can this be anything other than a repeated oversight? appreciate any thoughts...

401(k) plan excludes bonuses from the definition of compensation for deferral purposes. Employer is considering adding a safe harbor match formula dollar for dollar up to 4% computed each semi monthly payroll period, and to make the matching contribution at the same time as deferrals are posted.

In this case, is the definition of compensation for computing the safe harbor match the same as the definition for deferrals? I assume it would be, otherwise your matching contribution amounts would be greater than your deferral amounts for some employees.

If this is true, the match would be less expensive than the 3% across the board non elective safe harbor type of contribution, since I assume that formula cannot exclude the bonuses.

Assume both definitions of compensation meet 414(s).

Employer X maintains an HDHP and contributes to HSAs it has set up for its employees. If an employee is eligible for and enrolled in Medicaid, does this cause the employee to cease to be an eligible individual who would no longer be able to contribute to or have contributions made to an HSA?

I have a takeover plan that only permits distributions at normal retirement. They previously offered a one-time 30 day window in which the terminated participants at that time could receive a distribution of their account balance. Following the 30 day window, the plan reverted to distributions at normal retirement.

Despite the short period of time for which immediate distributions were offered, this seems like a 411(d)(6) issue and would be a cutback of benefits. And that would apply to all participants' account balances at that time, regardless of whether they were active or terminated at that time. Do you agree? Any arguments out there that would permit this one-time window?

Company A just became a wholly owned subsidiary Company B. Comp A's plan has a loan provision. B's does not want A's outstanding loans in their plan. The actual date that A's employees become B's employees won't occur until around the start of the 2nd quarter 2016. Can A's plan be amended to allow for the loans to be repaid by personal payment, not via payroll deduction, so that it will not be a taxable event?

Assuming you are not an Applicable Large Employer (ALE) - just trying to confirm WHO must do the filings...

If plan is insured, the insurance company prepares and files the 1095-B's. Do they also do the 1094-B transmittal, or must the employer do this? If under government sponsor (for CHIP, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) or Health Insurance Marketplace, apparently they handle on a 1095-A, and with certain exceptions, on a 1095-B, and the employer doesn't have to do anything?.

If self-insured, then the employer must file both the 1094-B and the 1095-B's, right?

Thanks.

Does anyone know if you can set up payroll deduction IRAs and have a 401(k) plan under the same employer.

We have a client that excludes all highly compensated employees from the 401(k) plan.

Since the 401k is not offered to the HCEs they are looking to offer the payroll deduction IRAs to the HCEs.

Does anyone know if this is permitted, I read on the IRS website that the Payroll Deduction IRAs would have to be offered to all employees of the employer. However they don't want to do this for obvious reasons.

Employer wants to automatically withhold deferral from a quarterly bonus only. Any restrictions on this?

401k plan is changing from all brokerage FBO accounts to a platform with an insurance/annuity company that provides mutual funds but no stocks and bonds.. Owner has corp. bonds and would like to keep her account but make future contributions to the platform. All other participants, who have their accounts invested in cash, would have their accounts transferred to the platform - the brokerage account would no longer be an option for them.

Is there a problem with this? Perhaps discriminatory?

I appreciate your thoughts.

A plan with roughly 140 eligible participants on 1st day of the year but 401K only and approximately 50 participants with balances.

Clearly by definition the plan requires an audit and has filed one historically.

In the last year of the plan the sponsor goes bankrupt and pays out all participants.

If the sponsor has no funds to pay an auditor and the plan has paid all benefits to participants, what do you do?

File Final 5500 with no audit?

Obviously if someone comes up with money for auditor this is not a problem but this can't be the first time this has come up.

Calendar year 401(k) plan (not safe harbor) is top-heavy. Plan has a participating employer effective 1/1/2014. All employees are eligible to make 401(k) deferrals after meeting the plan's eligibility requirements (1 YOS/age 21/semi-annual entry). PS is cross-tested (separate allocation groups for each participant) w/last day & 1,000 hour requirement. For 2015 can we amend the plan to exclude the employees of the participating employer for just the PS component of the plan (coverage will pass), and if so are they required to get the top-heavy minimum contribution & the minimum gateway contribution for the year?

We have a participant in a 401k plan who recently deceased. He was married and his wife wants to know what will happen to the outstanding loan balance. Our plan document does not provide guidance regarding this particular provision.

Will the loan be taxable to him, his estate or to her (the beneficiary)?

Does anyone know what a QLAC is, we have a client that would like to transfer their 401(k) to a QLAC to avoid taking his RMD. He is 70 1/2 and 5% owner.

The plan allows for in-service distributions at age 59 1/2.

Can he move his money from the 401(k) in to a QLAC? If so would he be required to take his RMD from the 401(k) for 2015 before doing so?

I saw this question asked in this section several pages back but it was never really answered. This would be for a municipality in Florida. If the answer to the first question is "no" then the subsequent questions wouldn't apply. (Also, if I misrepresented the different IRC codes please correct me)

1. Can a governmental defined benefit plan under 414(d) be established to cover a small group of employees (city manager, department directors, maybe mid level management) since it is exempt from ERISA non discrimination rules?

I saw a note where pre-ERISA 401(a)(4) applies under minimum vesting standards that suggests, "either benefits or contributions must not discriminate in favor of employees who are officers, employees, shareholders, persons whose principal duties consist in supervising the work of other employees, or highly compensated employees." I am confused because every time I see this it is in reference to vesting standards and I also see repeatedly that government plans are exempt from non discrimination standards; but this appears to be just that or is it specific to vesting. What am I missing?

2. Could a previously frozen plan be reopened but only for the select group in order to realize economies of scale (board, actuary, investment manager, etc.) or is it better to create a new plan and administration?

3. Are there any rules, state (Florida) or federal that anyone is aware of that requires there be a "board" of trustees instead of just a single independent trustee such as a financial institution?

Wouldn't make sense to have a 5 member board for a plan with potentially 5 participants. Or could you just have the members sit as the board.

Thanks in advance for any feedback or direction on this issue.

A participant leaves company A and is 100% vested (3 years of service)

He is employed from 8/06 to 3/2009.

He was later hired by Company B on 7/1/2014. 2 years, 0% vested as of 12/31/2015. Both plans have a 3 year cliff vesting schedule.

In 2015, Company A and Company B merge.

He never took a distribution from Plan A.

Plan uses Rule of Parity for vesting service.

Will this participant be 100% vested in his Company B balace when the two plans merge in 2015? Plan A is counting vesting service from Company B.