Under Obamacare, employer insurance premiums no longer as simple as Single, Married or Family, but rather are based upon Number of children, their ages, age of the employee and age of spouse, and the sex of all. Can an employer who charges an employee a percentage contribution also charge differently to employees based upon sex and age?

A top heavy PS plan uses several rate groups determined by levels of comp. The plan defines comp as only that paid while a participant, and since there are dual entry dates, some new participants must use 6-month comp for testing. If the 3% TH allocation based on a full year's comp for one such participant equals 5.5% of his 6-month comp, would everyone else in that individual's rate group have to then also receive 5.5% of their comp instead of the 5% gateway allocation? The document doesn't seem to address this possibility.

If a participant terminates his employment on December 26th, but has 10 unused vacation days that he gets paid for, is his termination date 12/26/14 or 1/5/2015?

What are your opinions on having a trust vs. not having a trust? Is there more tax advantages to having a trust, is it better for a fiduciary to have a trust?

A retired taxpayer has both a 403B and an IRA. For several years she has been combining the values of the two accounts for the purposes of the RMD and distributing from the IRA only. The law states that RMDs must come from each of the accounts. But, in reality the tax effect is the same as if she had followed the law. Any advice on how to approach this situation with the IRS to confess and ask for forgiveness? The potential tax liability (50%) is about $127,000 not including penalties and interest. Thank you.

A retired taxpayer has both a 403B and an IRA. For several years she has been combining the values of the two accounts for the purposes of the RMD and distributing from the IRA only. The law states that RMDs must come from each of the accounts. But, in reality the tax effect is the same as if she had followed the law. Any advice on how to approach this situation with the IRS to confess and ask for forgiveness? The potential tax liability (50%) is about $127,000 not including penalties and interest. Thank you.

A retired taxpayer has both a 403B and an IRA. For several years she has been combining the values of the two accounts for the purposes of the RMD and distributing from the IRA only. The law states that RMDs must come from each of the accounts. But, in reality the tax effect is the same as if she had followed the law. Any advice on how to approach this situation with the IRS to confess and ask for forgiveness? The potential tax liability (50%) is about $127,000 not including penalties and interest. Thank you.

Is there any consensus or opinions out there on whether Hatfa liabilities can be used on a restricted HCE distribution calc ? (110% funded after proposed distribution).

Have to be employed on the last day of the plan year.

I can't find anything in 416 that states the deceased gets TH.

It is rumored our company’s ESOP is under investigation by the Employee Benefits Security Administration (part of the Department of Labor/DOL) for possible ERISA violations.

Once the DOL’s investigation has concluded:

- How can I find out the findings of the investigation?

- Is my company required to let me know of the DOL’s findings?

- Is this information publicly available?

Thank you,

Brett

Does anyone know the regulations about rechacterization of per-tax salary reduction to a ROTH within a 401(k) Plan. If it can be done what are the limits as to the amount permissible? Is there an annual limit?

Has anyone read/used this book? Is it worth buying - I guess what I mean by that is does it address sort of real life situations, with good examples, or is it just statutes,regulations, and theory?

Employer would like to make the following Safe Harbor Match...

100% of the first 3%

50% of the next 2%

1. in the aggregate better than the basic match

Does the 50% of the next 2 cause this to fail as an enhanced match because it is an escalating formula??

So confused???

Thanks

Plan A has an unusual feature that strikes me as impermissible. If a participant submits a benefit application mid month (e.g., January 7), when the first check is cut (say, February 15), in addition to the full monthly payment for February it includes a "make-up" payment for the fraction of that month from the date the paperwork is submitted through the end of that month (here, January 7 through January 31).

This seems to either (i) violate the requirement that the annuity starting date be the first day of the first period for which the benefit is paid [§ 1.401(a)-20, Q&A-10], by making it the day the paperwork is filed rather than February 1, or (ii) provide for payments for a period before the annuity starting date (which can't be earlier than February 1, as I see it).

Is there some way this is permissible? Thanks.

Under Section 1.125-4(e) a mid year change is permitted when an employee or spouse "Becomes entitled to coverage (i.e. becomes enrolled)" in Medicare Part A or Part B.

If an employee does not actually enroll in Medicare when first eligible, does the actual enrollment in a mid-year in a later year (say beyond age 70) qualify as a change permitting him to drop health care under the employer plan? Premiums are paid pre-tax under the cafeteria plan.

I am wondering what the purpose of the parenthetical in the regs is and will it help this employee who has now decided he wants to enroll in Medicare, but he won't be covered in time for start of the plan year.

Roughly sixty employee company, half of the eligible are deferring, 50% of first 5% match, bad ADP and ACP but not close to being Top Heavy.

A Plan is going to start Safe Harbor Matching in 2015 (Enhanced Formula). I'm designating that Pre-2015 matching accounts (non-safe harbor) remain subject to vesting. Forfeitures may happen after 1/1/2015 in these prior accounts. If the amount of forfeitures is greater than Plan expenses, it would be great if they could be used to fund (reduce) some of the Safe Harbor Match.

The document we use is from one of the big providers and an adoption agreement provision is "Forfeitures will be used in the following manner:" (check box) "Any permissible method (restore forfeitures, reduce Company contributions (or reallocate as Company contributions) made pursuant to Article 4 or to pay Plan expenses)".

In response to a query of whether the forfeitures could fund part of the Safe Harbor Match, the document provider said:

"There is nothing in the plan document that specifically prevents forfeitures to be used to fund safe harbor contributions but the IRS has noted verbally that they do not agree with that position and will be providing clarification in future regulations. At this point it is a plan by plan decision on if they want to proceed with using forfeitures to fund safe harbor contributions."

I'd prefer to

a) reduce (fund) the Safe Harbor contribution by the forfeitures,

b) If plan expenses could soak them up, I'd like pay then, or

c) allocate to those deferring in some proportion

Any experiences anyone would like to share?

Am I correct in assuming that the recent IRS Notice 2014-54, addressing the allocation of distributed funds made to multiple destinations, between pre and after tax amounts, is only applicable to "pooled retirement plans", and not "allocated plans", such as John Hancock, etc?

Thank you very much for your insights!

An employer recently purchased another factory in another state. Currently we are within the transition rule period (not sure if it matters).

The company that was aquired also has its own 401(k) plan that has yet to adopt the purchisors plan. An employee from the purchasing company is leaving that company to work at the new facility. The plan sponsor wants to term him and give him a rehiredate and consider him as an employee of the other new firm. They want to distribute his assets to the new companys 401(k) plan. In essence he would no longer be an employee of company A but now an employee of company b.

Can we do this?

Please bare with me i am a nube, if more info is needed i will be happy to oblige.

A DB Plan is attempting to terminate but one of the participants refuses to elect to receive their distribution. They believe they have been "short changed" by the Plan and is threatening legal action.

what can the Plan do if she won't elect to take a distribution? Can the trustee rollover her benefit (well over $5,000) into an IRA for the participant without her election, or purchase a deferred annuity for her?

Thanks for any guidance you can give.

401(k) Plan - 1 year of service dual entry for non-elective PS and Safe Harbor, 3 mos of service monthly entry for deferrals. Plan is top heavy. Client is allocating a profit sharing so we must meet top heavy minimum requirements. Plan Compensation is date of entry for each source.

ee#1 - hired 4/1/13 - enters plan for non-elective ps and safe harbor 7/1/14. Receives combined profit sharing and safe harbor on 1/2 year comp (7/1 - 12/31/14) of 5%. Gateway testing on 1/2 year compensation passes. In addition, making sure it meets 3% top heavy on full year comp.

EE#2 - hired 4/1/14 - not eligible for non-elective profit sharing or safe harbor.

Since plan is top heavy and eligible to defer, must receive top heavy 3% on full year comp. Now that top heavy is allocated, must test gateway, Correct?. What compenation would I use for the gateway portion since eligible compensation for non-elective ps and sh is $0 since not eligible. If I use comp from participation date for deferrals 6/1/14 - it doesn't seem fair to ee#1.

What compensation should I test gateway for EE#2? Thanks!