Little history: My husband and I hired a lawyer(s) to have his ex-wife of 16 years be removed as the beneficiary of survivor benefits. We were definitely blessed because the judge granted DRO and after 2-3 submissions to the company (was told they never received it until third time) and hiring another lawyer to formulate the Amended QDRO ( It was deemed qualifed 3/2014 and active 6/2014) I know usually not ever heard of.. being able to win a case like this after 16 years. Here is the problem: From 2006-2014 his ex-wife would have been the surviving spouse if he had died. I would not have received a dime. NOW the company is making it retroactive to 2006 (early retirement) for his current wife (me) being the survivor and informing us we have to pay 1400 dollars even though if he would have died during the time frame, his ex-wife would have been the surviving spouse. Does anyone have any idea how we can get this fixed? Such as survivor benefit starting in 2014. The company is one of the big 3 American Auto industry. I do not know if I can be more specific of the company.

If you want more history, I wrote about it before and it would be in the forum under QDRO with my user name.

What do you think about Senator Rubio's idea of allowing non-governmental employees to contribute to (and invest under) the Federal Thrift Savings Plan?

If you would be comfortable sending me a PM and letting me know what you all are thinking about charging for these PPA restatements, I would be more than happy to reciprocate with the same for you. We're just trying to get a sense for what others are doing in this regard.

Plan Sponsor of a calendar year 401k plan deposits employee deferrals from the Dec. 2012 payroll once in Dec. 2012 and then again in Jan. 2013. In March 2013, he fails to deposit the employee deferrals which still haven't been paid. When determining the lost earnings, can I calculate it on the net amount due after subtracting the duplicate Dec. 2012 deposit from the missing March 2013 deposit? Would it be preferable to calculate the lost earnings on the entire amount that should have been deposited in March 2013?

Can an existing plan of the Plan Sponsor be a qualified replacement plan?

Small DB plan with some excess assets above 415 limit, can they transfer it to an existing profit sharing or 401(k) that already covers all of the DB participants and allocate the excess or do they need to actually establish a new PS plan to accomplish this?

Excess assets can easily be allocated in 1 year.

i was reading a note in cch pertaining to counting back in-service distributions made over a 5-year period. the note stated that in-service distributions to a key employee that are rolled over to an IRA are counted back. what if the key employee took an in-service in cash and didn't roll it over?

as explained in the IRS notes

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/epn_2014_7.pdf

A one-person defined benefit plan was started effective 1/1/2012. On the 2012 SB, the funding target and assets were both $0. In 2013, prior to 9/15/2013, $75,000 was contributed, which satisfied the 2012 minimum required contribution and created a small prefunding balance. On line 16 of the 2013 SB, would it be correct to put 80% to show that the prefunding balance is available to apply towards the 2013 minimum?

Thanks!

I am seeking any and all thoughts on the following. There is an existing cash balance plan where one begins to participate in the plan at the beginning of the month following date of hire. Accruals (pay credits and interest credits) begin after participatiion begins. A contemplated design change to be made prospectively for new hires would implement a one-year wait for eligibility to participate but such persons would accrue a benefit from the first of the month after hire. I assume hours of service prior to participation would count for vesting purposes.

This concept of accruing a benefit prior to meeting eligibility for participation is alien to me. Thoughts on where one might find guidance that would allow or preclude such a design would be appreciated.

Would such folks (in their eligibility period but with a benefit accrual) be counted as participants for PBGC per-participant PBGC premium purposes. The language in the 2014 instructions indicates" For premium purposes, “participant” means an individual (whether active, inactive, retired, or deceased) with respect to whom the plan has Benefit Liabilities as of the Participant Count Date." Until such individuals become participants in the Plan under the contemplated design, if the individual has not yet the eligibility period as of the Participant Count Date, there is no actual benefit liabilities and thus seemingly the answer is "no" based on the PBGC instructions. Again, thoughts?

Is this design something being pushed by the consulting firms....?

My sense is this contemplated design won't be considered by the plan sponsor...but would like to know whether such is or isn't allowed by law/regulation.

Thanks.

We set up a cash balance plan for a client for 2013. The client uses a bundled provider for their 401k, and we only administer the cash balance plan. Their 401k is a safe harbor 401k.

The client was supposed to have amended their document to allow for employer contributions (back in 2012, there were no employer contributions permitted). We now get to the end of 2013, and calculate their profit sharing contribution only to find out that they never amended the plan.

We're combo testing the cash balance with the profit sharing, but if the 401k doesn't allow for profit sharing, how can we make the contribution?

The bundled provider on the 401k is saying that since the plan is safe harbor, it cannot be amended to allow the contribution, and in fact it still can't be amended until 2015 because mid year amendments are not allowed for safe harbor plans.

What would anyone think about an 11g amendment to a safe harbor 401k that allocates a profit sharing contribution so that we can pass a failed discrimination test?

Client has opted for Safe Harbor match in his plan... client also prefers that match be calculated on a per pay basis - each pay date a self contained calculation period... Is this possible?

Does anyone know if there are special rollover rules for employee contributions that are distributed in a lump sum from a defined benefit plan (non-cash balance DB)?

I know that they are considered after-tax contributions for tax purposes (are not tax deductible when contributed)...I believe they are compared to the total value of the benefit (in whatever form paid) and that ratio is applied to each payment, or lump sum amount...and that portion is not taxable until the participant has, in effect, received a full return of all employee contributions.

Just not sure if this has any bearing on the rollover rules affecting these amounts.

Is there any special ADP testing required in a SAR SEP IRA plan when the owners wife becomes eligible and wants to participate ?

How about the owners son ?

THank you

When our client has an employee separate from service, they process a separate check to payout their accrued vacation. Historically they have not taken a 403b deferral or match on this payout. Is there an issue with this? Their document seems to be silent on this subject. We have some confusion around whether or not deferrals MAY or MUST be made on the accrued vacation pay.

HCE elects a lump sum option, but plan fails 110% test, participant receives monthly draw down of LS amount. Is the monthly benefit eligible for rollover? Thanks.

We have a safe harbor plan which provides both a non-elective contribution of 3% and a matching contribution which matches up to 6% of salary and provides 100% on the first 3% of salary deferred and 50% on the next 3% of salary deferred for a total match of 4.5%. The non-elective contribution is fully vested immediately though the matching contribution vests over 5 years. There is also a true-up at the end of the year on the matching contribution so that if an employee contributes over 6% for any period but not for the entire year, the true-up match will equal 4.5% of compensation contributed. This year, we are going to add an amendment requiring employees to be employed on the last day of the year to be eligible for the true-up, except in the case of death or disability. Does adding the last day rule, have an affect either on the plans qualification as a safe harbor plan or on whether the plan is required to perform the top heavy test?

Employer maintains a nonqualified defined benefit SERP for its employee. SERP provides that "EE is entitled to 100k payment upon retirement after, on, or before reaching 65." EE has reached 65 and employer has not withheld any FICA tax in the past on the SERP. EE is still employed. Is it feasible to assert that the commencement date of payments is not reasonably ascertainable until actual retirement since benefit is contingent on termination date (despite the fact that the benefit (PV of 100k) certainly is ascertainable by assuming he'll retire at a certain date)? Thus, no FICA wages taken into account until termination (unless early inclusion rule is opted).

If not, can employer take into account the PV of entire 100k benefit now (despite EE still being employed)?

Does anyone know if it is even appropriate for a US citizen working in a foreign country (in this case a small island nation) to receive US wages (i.e., reportable on a w-2?).

My question of course is can the employee participate in the mainland 401k plan?

Hello,

What constitutes 'primary care' of a child? Most older children (9-12) are not placed in day care facilities; they go to some sort of camp.

I've seen claims denied because soccer camp isn't 'primary care.' Does that definition turn on the mission of the organization hosting the camp? Or the parent's intention in placing them there?

What does the IRS use to determine eligibility? Pub. 503 says:

Have a situation where I need to determine common ownership and if I need to include the employees of company "B" into the parent 401(k) Plan: Here is the layout.

Company A: John Smith owns 51%

Mary Smith (John's daughter) owns 19%

and the remaining 30% is owned by Mary's Trust

Company B: John Smith owns 51%

Mary Smith owns 1%

Bob Smith (John's son) owns 48%

is there a common ownership that we need to include the employees of company B into the the 401(k) set up for Company A?