austin3515

I can usually beat them into submission, but it's just frustrating to have to do so every single time.

I'm with you guys, believe me. But the recordkeepers want their forms! Has anyone noticed that reply font is very very small??

This comes up all the time. We get a court signed document saying to move money from the Participant to the AP and they come back and say "we won't comply with the order without getting the paperwork back from the participant." To which I say "are you crazy??" We learned the hard way with a large QDRO where we waited until the participant returned paperwork (per the general procedures of the recordkeeper), which of course she never did. Imagine the hot water we were in when we told her account was down 17%... (this was back in 2007 or 2008). Am I the only who constantly bickering with recordkeepers to get them to move the money to a new account ASAP.

Good idea but this is a non-profit and that would not work out... The red tape! It's also audited, etc.

This was entirely after the fact. We sent the allocation and they said "why aren't we getting the match?" And they are both NHCE's. So I think we are good... We definitely did not say "if you defer we will give you a match." This bonus was NOT conditioned on making deferrals. It is based on deferrals but it was not a PRE-condition. Thanks for finding the cite for me!

When plan was drafted a couple of key people got excluded from the match because they had not yet met eligibility for the match (but they did defer). Does anyone have a problem with the company providing a "bonus" equal to what the match would have been, which the employee can then contribute the plan as 401k (they are well under the 17,500 cap)? I seem to recall that there is some rule that prohibits anything be provided on account of elective deferrals other than "match." It seems to me that an employer should be free to provide a bonus for any reason imaginable. Thoughts?

Client's have a habit of making mistakes

We're trying to have an EACA. So are there rules regarding when escalations can occur? I have tried to avoid auto enrollment like the plague, not to mention auto escalation!!

Every 7/1 thereafter. Initial: 1/1/15 First 7/1/15 2nd 7/1/16 Future 7/1/XX

Is there an issue with having auto enroll effective 1/1/15 and then the first auto escalation 7/1/15? Something in our document is ambiguous about when the first escalation can occur.

'Tis I am who am mistaken. I hereby bow down to your extensive expertise

you're thinking of a SARSEP, which I only know because I just had a similar issue. There is no issue having a SEP and another plan. IF I am mistaken, please let me know, but I believe you will post again acknowledging I am correct...

What do you mean coordinated with a 401(k)? If I need a straight percent of pay in the SEP I'm not sure how to do that if I stop mid-year. Or are you suggesting I can somehow take into account the contributions made in the PS Plan?

my bad, yes they fund every pay-period.

Can I discontinue a SEP as of 9/30/2014 (calendar year is the plan year)? Effective 10/1 we want the Er contributions to go to the new 401k/PS plan.

Maybe I am a cowboy but for a two person plan I would not be too concerned. Those rules on "its really profit sharing" were for those companies that would make a $200,000 deposit on December 1st as an advance for next years 401k (and take the deduction in the year funded). Yes, technically it is profit sharing. As others will tell you, advise the client of the right thing to do (in writing) but as TPA we are not their parents.

Testing issues. It ended up not mattering, there was no prototype available anywhere. And I guess for the moment their testing is "acceptable" so we're adding a SH 401k effective 1/1/15.

I've found that an employer with a SARSEP can only add a 401k mid-year if they adopted a prototype (and not the 5305A-SEP). Is there any way to get my hands on such a document? The Plan was with Fidelity but Fidelity indicated that they used the 5305A-SEP.

Even if SpouseB now is willing to sign the consent, what happens if he later asserts that the consent is invalid? The Plan administrator is the spouse waiving the benefit, so would it not be unlikely that he would accuse himself of not taking due care?

Owner (aka SpouseB) and SpouseA both work for a medical practice. SpouseA wants to name kids as beneficiaries and therefore Owner (SpouseB) must consent. Can Owner witness his own consent on behalf of plan administrator? Or is it foolish not to just get it notarized?

fwiw, I don't think you can use the 403b deferrals in the Avg Ben Test.

There is no plan aggregation for the audit requirement. 3 plans with 60 participants each = no audit requirement for any of the plans. You still need to make sure each LOB has 50, btw.

Why not have one question: What type of plan is this? DB / PS / 401k (including PS w/ 401k) / Money Purchase / ESOP And then ask about the other "characteristics" as distinct from plan type. Oh, if I were in charge!!

I let it go... It is ridiculous I agree. I still can't figure out why they want to know on the H how much Mutual Funds paid out in dividends. Or why for realized gains they make us come up with aggregate proceeds and cost basis. Are they using this data for ANYTHING?

Are you "required" to use Code 2E (Profit Sharing) if the only contributions that have ever been made are 401k and Safe Harbor? Or is it necessary to clarify that at its core it is a profit sharing plan. I always used 2E for 401k plans but I'm reviewing a 5500 for the prior provider and they are not using it. Should I tell them they are flat out wrong or let it be? I'm thinking that it's probably ok to exclude it (they did indicate 2J and 2K).