austin3515

Another interesting question would be what about the 5500? I actually have a similar situation now but we are discussing the 5500. Can the POA sign the form? The trustee is not currently in a position to do so (business actually closed down, plan is being termed, etc.). Someone of course has POA to sign all of his other tax documents.

But do they apply separately or in the aggregate? That is the question. I didn't feel like looking it up .

On principal I would not do anything. Sometimes I think people just need to take a deep breath and ask "is this really a big deal"? We leave small over-deposits in peoples accounts fairly often (Johnny was over-deposited by $8, etc.). If they're underpaid that is different, we usually correct all under-payments. But tiny little overpayments?

That's brilliant... Our document has a whole different section for the "additional match."

401(k) plan has discretionary match, calculation = ever pay-period, but currently there is NO Match. Is it too late (for calendar 2014) to change the match calc to a plan year calc? If they were making a match, the answer would be "duh, of course it's not because everyone can only get more." But what if they are not making a match? One could argue that when allocating a fixed sum every pay-period (through a giant excel spreadsheet that looks at every pay-date) vs an annual calculation, some people will get more and some less. What do people think? Or would the switch only really be permissible if the match is hard-coded into the document (i.e., in that scenario no one can get less)?

Bird, we have the same exact approach except that I boneheadedly missed the "e-mailing is ok if email is an integral part of the job." Better late than never I suppose.

Don;t I know it. I tell all my pooled clients that they dodged a bullet.... But back to my discussion: it seems like the sole distinction related to the "alternative method" is the continuous access web-site - that is, an email is sent saying "hey, you can log into the web-site to get your disclosure" as opposed to attaching a pdf to the email. Any thoughts greatly appreciated.

So I'm reading up on the fee disclosure requirements and the use of electronic media and I am Dazed and Confused. I'm reading that for the Investment related information (the chart, etc.) that the DOL Safe Harbor IS available. Meaning: -If email is an integral part of your job; OR -You opt in to electronic delivery; then You can receive the disclosures electronically. Otherwise, you need to receive paper. Then there is this ridiculously complex Alternative Method which as far as I can tell is a far less efficient way of obtaining the very same result. So what gives? What is the practical purpose of this Alternative Method? The Alternative Method requires participants to receive paper notices asking them if they want to opt-in and then they must receive a paper annual notice each year, etc. Until now, I thought the Alternative Method was the only e-delivery method available for the fee disclosures. I did not realize it was in addition to the existing safe harbors. I just cannot figure out what you get for all of your efforts in complying with the Alternative Method...

My question wasn't "how do I handle this situation in my plan" it was "what is this person thinking of?", hence the plan document is not necessary for this discussion. I knew it was not gong to be an option that was available, I was just trying to give a better answer re: why it could not be done. And now I know!

This plan is NOT subject to any QJSA or QPSA stuff. I'm not looking for what this plan says. I'm only trying to determine if this person is talking about something where I can say to them "you're thinking of the QPSA rules, but those rules do not apply to this plan." Is that a QPSA rule, where the participant can name 50% for the spouse and 50% for anyone else? The thought being the spouse gets her half - it's the participant's half that is being assigned elsewhere? If yes, I think this is what is being referred to.

Got a call from an advisor who has a participant insisting that if the spouse is the 60% beneficiary than the other 40% can go to someone else. I'm sure it is not true but was wondering if someone reads this and says "oh yeah, they are thinking of governmental 457(b) accounts attributable to pre-1982 accumulations in their after-tax balances" or something equally obscure (my example is fictitious of course). If anyone knows it is one of you...

I think it's actually kind of clever although they should have had non-key HCE THM go in as PS. Although I suppose a regular document gives you the option of going either way (PS or QNEC) and I like discretion

Bless you, I could NOT find that in the EOB!

I agree - take for example a participant with $500 of investments and a $20,000 loan balance (they took an in-service after they took a loan). Because of this example alone I cannot imagine a different outcome. But nevertheless, I cannot find anything concrete. I will check with Corbel to see if it is buried in their document somewhere.

To whom is the loan offset taxable? Deceased participant's estate or the beneficiary? And why can't I find any sites at all! http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/51842-deceased-participant-questions/ I found this thread, but there was nothing conclusive... How could this not be well documented??

I don't see how this would not be considered an eligible rollover distribution. Talk about sticking it to the Participant if it was not eligible for rollover. If it was me, I would just do the 1099-R on the employer's ein and call it a day. I guess I might feel differently if this was a "large" distribution. But if we're talking about $5,000 I would not go crazy with this.

I don;t love Relius, but I do love that you can create custom reports in Crystal which we rely on heavily. Frankly without them I wouldn't like Relius much at all (or any other platform for that matter). But regardless, the idea of converting to another system makes me shudder at a) all the work and b) all the time mastering a new system. I barely have time to time to tie my shoes

Any updates to this? I have the same issue pretty much right now...

Sorry, but if there is real estate in the plan, can you still use the SF (i.e., because that particular question on qualifying assets is not asked)?

Well, there you go... From the SF Instructions. Eligible one-participant plans need complete only the following questions on the Form 5500-SF:  Part I, lines A, B, and C;  Part II, lines 1a–5b;  Part III, lines 7a–c, and 8a;  Part IV, line 9a;  Part V, line 10g; and  Part VI, lines 11–12e. Note: 6a regarding eligible assets is not asked, so even if the plan invests in real estate it can still use the SF. Would everyone agree with that statement?

When filing the SF instead of the EZ, are there questions that we do not need to answer because those same questions are not on the EZ? I'm getting the message from someone that the SF they filed has a lot of blanks because those questions do not apply to an EZ.

Scratch that... I just read the cited reg - I didn't realize there were parallel regs in 401k and 401m on this topic. Amend away, just make sure you follow all those rules including the ACP test...

A mid year change to the ACP Safe Harbor Match (not the ADP Safe Harbor Match). Well that is interesting because what if it was a discretionary contributions determined separately for each pay-period. Now there is no amendment. If on the contrary it was hard-coded into your document than an amendment would be required, and of course the IRS no-likey amendments to safe harbor plans. I think most amendments are ok, but this one is a bit too close to the ACTUAL Safe Harbor Plan, so I would not do it. But again if the match was discretionary and calculated/determined each pay-period (and the document specifies each pay-period), then I think you should be ok. Just make sure you SH Notice either didn't mention the match directly, or that you left the door open to changing the match.

Let's say 3% of each of 10 gross paychecks is $50. Do you not agree that after 10 pay-periods, 3% of the same gross wages would be $500? If you have only deposited $475 then somewhere along the way you snafued. And snafued is laymen for operational defect. So, there is no way to avoid a "true-up" which is the same as saying you are required to calculate the SHNEC correctly every pay-period.

Yes, if it doesn't make any mistakes all year. 3% of pay for one pay-period for 52 weeks should be the same as 3% of pay for the whole year. Your thinking of the matching contributions where the specific pay-periods in which the deferrals were made will cause a difference between what was done each pay-period and an annual calculation. Because it's just 3% of comp on the SHNEC there should never be a difference. We have true-ups all the time on SHNECS and they all relate to snafus.