austin3515

I disagree that "everyone in their own group" is definitely determinable. It is the definition of indefinite. It is physically impossible to give one contribution to the left half of Johnny and another to his right half. Therefore, the document is essentially say there is no rhyme or reason here and we can do whatever we want. I of course agree that it needs to be clear cut and not gray. This client has assured me that everyone works 40 hours a week except for two people who work 6 hours a day. But there are no gray areas. So I defined full-time in my document (even before I read your notes ) To be anyone who works more than 35 hours a week and Part-Timers is everyone else (so I left myself a nice buffer). And if one more person (including TAG!) tells me I have to make sure I pass coverage and nondiscrimination I might scream (not that you would hear me of course ).

I cannot understand what you are basing this on. I think it is widely accepted that "definitely determinable" is a joke in the wake of the IRS's blessing of "everyone is in their own group." The definitely determinable criteria has been reduced to the Plan Administrator arbitrarily coming up with a list of who gets what. And since they have blessed these documents with absolutely no limitations, it seems hard for them to raise "definitely determinable" as an issue.

I tried every other way to slice it. This is the only uniqueness. TAG does not seem to have a problem with it FWIW. I'm going with that...

Whoever came up with the pre-approved plan language did not get the memo as both PT and VS allow each participant to be a separate group with essentially no parameters on establishing who is in what group.

I don't think it was. I think it was meant to ensure that ELIGIBILITY met the requirements set forth. There is no corresponding requirement as to the equitability of the AMOUNT oft he contribution once you are eligible.

"Also, I'd be concerned that deciding between full and part-time status might be seen as using employer discretion in determining which allocation class they are in." Since when has the IRS had a problem with that? I actually think the classification is going to be pretty objective and I'm told there is no one in a gray area. Ee's are either 40 hours a week and there is this one employee who is 25 hours a week. Is this really so different from top-heavy minimums?

And this one is - she works 30 hours a week which the employer considers part-time. So you're saying that having a separate rate for "part-timers" would not create a problem? I suppose if we were giving them a 1 basis point contribution that would be an obvious circumvention but in my case the benefits are less, but still very meaningful. I've "read some" about nondiscrimination, and I'm "pretty sure" that won't be an issue... Based on "primitive" knowledge of the subject

But what law am I breaking to distinguish the rate of contributions based on full-time/part-time? I'm in compliance with 410(a). And I'd say full/part-time is a reasonable business classification (not that I even need the average benefits test in my case).

There's no problem with providing a different rate of contribution for full-time vs. part-time employees, correct? So full-time ee's get 5% and part-time get 3%. Thanks!

Individual participant contracts are excluded to avoid the audit requirement. But now they are going over regardless. The client of course no longer wants to go to the trouble and expense of segregating out the pre-1/1/09 contracts and the auditor would prefer not exclude them because all of the trust reporting includes them. How are people handling this? Two options come to mind, Transfers Into Plan and Rollovers (I guess it is called "Other additions, including rollovers").

I felt bad, so I went looking for the answer: Section 6.02(4)© in EPCRS For some strange reason I cannot copy and paste... I typed in this link, so you might have to copy and paste to your browser... www.irs.gov/irb/2013-04_IRB/ar06.html Short answer is that you can use forfeitures towards the correction if forfeitures can be used to offset employer contributions.

I don't recall, but a) I think EPCRS will say and b) will it make any difference? I mean, are there other employer contributions that can be offset, thus making it a zero sum decision? So if the employer uses the $50 in forfeitures to reduce this correction or $50 to reduce the match, the employer still saves $50. I generally try to avoid answers like this that don't answer the question posed, but I went and did it anyway...

If the Plan Document does not designate the HR person as the Plan Administrator then he or she is not the Plan Administrator. The broker putting the words Plan Administrator in an RFP does not make it so. He could put in the RFP that the Plan is profit sharing plan when in fact it is a money purchase but it would not make it so. Again, I think the fact that a literal definition of plan administrator (I mean Webster Dictionary) would describe the HR person. And for that reason I think you are OK. I will give you another example though - often times I receive QDRO's where the order names my TPA firm as the "Plan Administrator" and when that happens it's first on my list of required changes. But then, that is a legally binding document, and therefore much different in gravity than a mere RFP.

I sometimes discourage people from signing the 5500 but I think the laymen's definition of "plan administrator" (that is, the person who administers the plan) gives enough leeway.

If you subscribe to TAG they have sweet template that will analyze up to 5 entities (maybe 4?) for 4 owners. Just put in your data and there are these really cool formulas that say "Company 1 and Company 2 are a controlled group" or Company 3 and 4 are a controlled group and Companies 1 and 5 are a controlled group. I'd share it but I would feel bad publishing their intellectual capital.

Thank you - PensionPro, where in the IRM is the site you mentioned?

What is "IRM" and where can I get a copy?

Would costs related to Continuing Education count for hardship distributions? For whatever reason the employer is not paying for the training, probably she is a per diem employee or something.

Client has 4 employees plus himself as the owner. All employees were hired in 2014. The owner started the business 6 years ago. Can he establish a safe harbor 401k for the employees and continue to contribute the max to the SEP ($52,000) without including any of his employees until 2017 (2014, 2015, 2016 for service = 2017 eligibility in the SEP)? The document does use the "3 of 5 rule." I know that we can no longer use the 5305 and I also know that I need to be concerned with top-heavy (hence the safe harbor status of the plan). I know about 415 aggregation, etc., but I cannot find anything on this, which is surprising because I would think this is a pretty obvious plan design choice in the right circumstances.,

Let's just say the auditors do not deserve any blame at all. I know sometimes they procrastinate, but in this case it was not their fault. (neither do I for that matter... hmmm.. who is left?? )

You're right, it's $760 but I'm sure they will not want to part with it. I thought it was double the rate from a small plan but it's just double the cap. I would have of course looked it up before I got too far

Oh absolutely, I will only respond if they write me first. I'm hoping they don't write at all based on the fact that it was only missed by 12 hours. But it sounds like you have argued facts and circumstances to even avoid the DFVC fee?

Client had a work-related emergency and had to ignore phone calls and emails pleading regarding filing the 5500 by the 7/15th due date. The form will be filed by noon today (just 12 hours late). Has anyone ever heard of a) a grace period or b) an abatement request that was approved? Or is the response, "we know #$@$ happens, and that's why we added DFVC." Long story short, it was an audited plan and the financials were received yesterday which is why this all went down last minute.

I wouldn't think so. We get everything from "TIAA-CREF."

Their Schedule A indicates that all of the money other than the TIAA Traditional Account is in pooled separate accounts. Yet on their Schedule D report, they include ONLY the TIAA Real Estate Account. Has anyone ever looking into why that is? I assume that we should be doing it more like Hancock does - listing each fund with "000" as the plan number. I don't really care, I will continue to exclude them based on TIAA's Schedule D report (let TIAA defend it if it ever gets questioned) but was wondering if anyone had ever looked into this.