austin3515

What is the name of the Trust? Am I crazy or would this be the name of the Plan (unless the Trust specifically includes a different name).

FYI, if anyone is attending this conference for ERPA credit, a) you need to make sure ASPPA has your PTIN (it is not requested on the form); b) apparently after the conference is over you need to request ASPPA to report the credits for you to the IRS. Sounds crazy for such a distinguished presentation that I'm sure will draw in hundreds of ERPA's. Anyway, beware. Perhaps someone from ASPPA can comment and clarify if I have misstated the inefficiencies of the process, or perhaps someone has some additional input. I certainly hope I am missing something...

I agree it is required (and yes that;s the disclosure), our Software just didn't start including it until recently.

FT for the first time on the 2014 SAR's is adding into the SAR the disclosure that there are "non-exempt transactions with parties in interest" (or something to that affect) when we indicate that there were late deposits. Are other software providers doing this too? It is a true statement of course, but I am just curious if there was any printed position on this from DOL, etc. I know for example that we do not attach the Schedule G for these on an audited plan. Somehow I doubt the DOL ever said "it's ok if you don't tell your participants about this" but thought I would ask.

I fall back on the rule of thumb Sal Tripodi sets forth in the EOB. Imagine the public policy position of disallowing an amendment that expands coverage. It's ridiculous. So Employer A excludes Class B from the Plan, but desires to provide Class B with retirement benefits. IRS disqualifies the Plan or penalizes Employer A merely for providing retirement benefits to a class of people it was previously denying such benefits. It is too hard to imagine even for the IRS. According to Sal, disallowing such an amendment that so clearly contradicts established public policy is "ridiculous" (I think in one version of his book he actually uses the word ridiculous).

I think you meant to say was that "if a plan DID have everyone in their own rate group..." Correct? Also you mentioned passing the "coverage test" in your first paragraph but I think you mean ratio percentage.

I answered this in my original post. Someone who knows the rules ought to be the judge of compliance.

I take you have a negative view on society... I think the vast majority of people are honest law abiding citizens who would not falsify information even dire circumstances. Certainly no requirement to hire a private detective to validate information, but asking for the records seems like a reasonable means of ensuring compliance. What about spousal waivers. Participant says "oh, we got divorced 4 years ago!" to which the prudent administrator says "OK, get me a copy of the divorce decree." Or how about "you have an incorrect date of birth for me, I turned 50 last year" to which the prudent plan administrator says "OK, let me just get a photocopy of your drivers license." I think too that the mere fact that participants a) are desperate, and b) do not have expertise in the definition of what a hardship is (which medical epxenses are covered, is my leaky roof a casualty or just wear and tear, using proceeds to payoff student loans) makes the possibility of noncompliance so incredibly high that the plan administrator would be way too remiss in leaving it to the participant to verify. It's akin to letting the fox guard the henhouse.

Was Fidelity the source of the IRS's newsletter regarding ensuring that plan sponsors keep hardship documentation? http://dcda.fidelity.com/static/dcle/WPSFidelityPerspectives/documents/FF_YFC_42215_Hardship_withdrawal_721275_final_041715.pdf It certainly seems that way. The largest 401k provider in the country says "ee's can self certify hardships" which as far as I know is quite contrary to everything I ever read on the topic. Just curious... Any thoughts on whether or not Fidelity will win this fight? They certainly put together quite a defense...

We might do half a dozen 11g's a year and we have a template, so it's not as though we're spending a lot of time doing 11g's. In the interest of full disclosure on occasion we do end up in a situation where it can be bit of a challenge to word the amendment to bring in the precise individual we want to, but we've always found a way. Generally it's pretty easy because the populations are small.

I think that is a matter of taste, in my humble opinion. You and I will arrive at the same allocation. I might need an -11g to get there, but then I will always be able to explain to someone in a concrete way that the reason they did not get the extra contribution was because of their employment status/hours worked. And no options are off the table for me as a result of this "inflexibility" because I always have the 11g in my back pocket. I'm not saying any other approach is wrong by the way. That's just the path that we have chosen.

As far as I can tell, these are the million dollar questions for which there does not appear to be any consensus: My thought is I have never seen a requirement that this be delineated in the document to be reasonable, but maybe there is. Has anyone looked more closely at this? It's not mentioned in Belgarath's site. I actually think this would not be a reasonable business classification. This seems like a perfect question for a Q&A. The last thing I will say is that what appears to be beyond reproach is either: Include a last day/1,000 hour rule if that is your intention (recall you can always do an -11g to bring in that terminated 25 year old, which has been asked/answered in IRS Q&A's). Make sure coverage passes the 70% ratio percentage test which is almost always a non-issue in these types of plans because generally your using the 3% SHNEC Because they are so simple and probably will always the desired outcome, why not use one of the two on each plan? Someone mentioned an inability to provide the gateway which is not accurate as any plan using a non-safe harbor allocation method should already include automatic gateway contributions. Maybe the poster was referring to an IDP where the attorney goofed. But he pre-approved ones should all have that language.

The doc should specifically say whether or not catch-ups are matched.

Let's say "Inexperienced TPA" was doing the 2009 5500 and was not aware of the exclusion and therefore was preparing a compilation of the 30 custodial accounts (no trust level report), and about 10 or 15 of those are pre 1/1/09. We would like to report the pre- 1/1/09 contracts as distributions to take advantage of the fact that they can be excluded. Anyone have any problems with this? I do not see anywhere in the FAB's and articles that in order to exclude them you needed to do so in 2009.

My opiion is if the bank puts the word foreclosure in the letter it's met my standard. They didnt give a lot of guidance here so tie goes to the runner...

But it is not advisable. I would definitely have two separate accounts. What if the participant wants to invest in high growth securities in Roth and fixed income in pre-tax (which would make a lot of sense...). Also, how can you guarantee the IRS will not challenge the cumulative earnings allocations between the sources? In a pooled account I think it is a lot different, but with brokerage accounts, I think commingling is a little silly...

But they will be 100% vested when made to THIS Plan. I think that is especially true if you can use it all up in the first deposit right when it xfers over.

Routine wear and tear is NOT a casualty. Article from McCay Hochman: http://www.mhco.com/BreakingNews/AHardship_051514.html "A critical criterion to look for when reviewing a hardship withdrawal request due to casualty loss is whether the event was sudden, unexpected, or unusual. The loss of property due to “progressive deterioration” does not qualify. Examples of progressive deterioration include termite damage or a roof that has leaked over time and must now be replaced."

Bird I just read your intro. I disagree, they could have said "disclose the amount of the fees" but they did not. In fact they said include a phone number...

Bird, thanks!!! So the amount is not required to be disclosed, do we all agree? Like I said best practice would be to disclose the fees but it then becomes a business decision whether or not to go the extra trouble. Our phone #'s are right on our notice/cover-letter so they could certainly call us.

Dear Johnny: The Plan requires employment status on the last day of the Plan Year to receive a contribution. As you recall, you drank the fizzy lifting drink and were fired because of that. Sincerely, Employer I like my letter better.

This is what we have been doing. GMK, I don;t have to tell you I'm sure that there are just 24 hours in a day and nothing that sounds simple ever turns out to be simple. Every simple project takes time.

The challenge for those of us who work with multiple providers is that it is hard enough to track the fees charged by the plan, let alone charged by outsiders. That;'s the dilemma...

No, it's an auto rollover to a terminated employee with less than $5,000 but more than $1,000. They just did not return their paperwork.

So including the fees charged by the IRA custodian to establish the account? I'm not going argue with that as being the best policy believe me, but where does it indicate that it is a requirement to disclose those fees? I have never heard of such a requirement to disclose the fee arrangement on the default IRA's before. I think that the distinction between best practice and a legal requirement is a very important distinction.