austin3515

Employer sponsors a SARSEP. Terminates Plan 12/20/2013 (essentially via a board resolution terminating it). Employer Sponsors Profit Sharing Plan Terminates 12/31/2013. Balances will not be paid out until June 2014. Calendar Year Plan Sponsor Starts a 401(k) Plan effective 2/1/2014 with a Plan Year 2/1/2014 – 01/31/2015. Plans with different Plan Years still have to be aggregated for Top Heavy purposes. To determine the top heavy status for Plan year beginning 2/1/2014 you must aggregate the plans and the determination dates that all fall within the same Plan Year. Therefore to determine the top heavy status for the new 401(k) Plan we must include all Top Heavy tests within the 2014 plan year. 1. Am I interpreting the regs correctly? 2. Is it correct to say that to determine the 401(k) Top heavy status I will only need to include the profit sharing Plan balances?

So NO elections regarding form of payment (installment over a period or a lump-sum) until the participant is eligible for the distribution (i.e, upon severance)? Do I have that right?

But do they need to make an election when they first become eligible?

(b) (I put it in the title, but not my question )

So for a regular 409A Deferred Comp Plan, participants must elect the timing and form of distribution before the beginning of the applicable taxable year - any similar requirement for a 457 Plan? Or can the participant decide upon the form of distribution after becoming eligible for a distribution?

How true that is...

I agree that this sounds like the kind of thing FTW will fix soon. I wont bore with you the 100 or so questions that I have

http://ftwilliams.com/Docs/ftwilliam_PortalPro.pdf Might want to take a look at this. We love FT Williams. I've never used this but if you read the description it is EXACTLY what we want it to be.

How difficult is it to add new users in drop box? What if someone has multiple vendors using drop box? Are there just different directories when you click on the little drop box icon? Most of all, it sounds like Drop Box does work for you in an environment similar to the one I just described?

What are people yusing to securely xfer files to clients? We send our clients 2, maybe 3 files a year. We currently use Sharefile, but 90% of the time the client writes back and says "I forgot the password." Why they won't click the forgot password link is beyond me, but it is what it is. sometimes they do and the password reset ends up in spam. Secure file transfer has become more than a small part of our existence. I'm wondering how well Drop Box works in this kind of environment. We have a couple of payroll vendors sending us files each pay-period using Drop Box which is nice because there is no log in process. On the downside, we are constantly adding new recipients, and as such an email based solution is quite preferable. Anyway, I'd be curious to know if there is a better mousetrap.

Can you point me in the right direction for what you are referring to? I see discussion of the business transaction question in the discontinuing of SH contributions due to plan termination, but nowhere else.

Small 401k plan where one of the owners has an LLC with no employees (other than himself). We want to add the LLC as an adopting employer for the 2013 plan year to maximize the comp for the owner. It is a brand new LLC in 2013, and it would be a controlled group. Plan is a safe harbor 401k plan. Anyone have a problem with doing this before year end. Let me rephrase because I know a lot of you would not do this. Is there anyone who would do this?

Mr Bagwell, are you the participant in question?

Let me ask another, way, because the TPA would never be the Administrator. Did Company ABC hire Pension Experts Inc. to assist with the compliance aspects of the Plan? Fill in the actual names, of course. And is a representative of Pension Experts Inc. giving you the offending answer?

I believe what he is trying to say is that the Employer is self-administering the program. There really is not a THIRD PARTY administrator, only an Administrator. That's what I believe anyway.

There is one more avenue to be pursued - our Corbel PT 401k has two separate provisions regarding Commencing Deferrals, and Changing Deferrals. The former might be quarterly while the latter might be monthly. You'd have to look at the adoption agreement, but perhaps the TPA is reading the document correctly. Are they able to point specifically to their rationale? IF there rationale is that they are not a participant merely because they did not elect to contribute, the TPA would bound by professional ethics to resign as TPA and go back to 401k 101.

I have an update - Cite: 1.414(q)-1T (A-9)(b)(1)(iii)(B) (B) Percentage exclusion provision. If 90 percent or more of the employees of the employer are covered under collective bargaining agreements that the Secretary of Labor finds to be collective bargaining agreements between employee representatives and the employer, which agreements satisfy section 7701(a)(46) and § 301.7701-17T (Temporary), and the plan being tested covers only employees who are not covered under such agreements, then the employees who are covered under such collective bargaining agreements are not counted in determining the number of noncollective bargaining employees who will be included in the top-paid group for purposes of testing such plan. In addition, such employees are not included in the top-paid group for such purposes. Thus, if the conditions of this paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B) are satisfied, a separate calculation is required to determine the number and identity of noncollective bargaining employees who will be highly compensated employees by reason of receiving over $50,000 and being in the top-paid group of employees for purposes of testing those plans that cover only noncollective bargaining employees. My summarization In other words, I think it is very clear that this exclusion does not apply AT ALL for the union plan. Therefore, when determining the number and identity of HCE's for the union plan, the non-union employees would be included in the calculation - the calculation essentially ignores any distinction between union and nonunion for purposes of determining HCE's in the union plan. Agree? Anyone?

Anyone have any thoughts on this question?

SunGard's response on the match was that it was a no-go because the features of the SHMAC and discretionary match were different, i.e., distribution restrictions, etc. It's funny because it did occur to me that I could try submitting for a DL, because obviously if I can give them zero I can them less. Thanks everyone,

According to Sungard Corbel, the answer is "no" this is not possible.

I can exclude HCE's from SHMAC. Can I provide them with a lesser match instead of no match at all and still maintain the ACP Safe Harbor? I'm trying to maintain the current match for the HCE's and give the NHCE's the SHMAC.

After reading Tom Poje's post from a couple of days ago, it is clear that they actually made things easier. Ilene's article led me astray. See below: There is one alternative to the "operating at a loss" rule. This requirement does not apply if a notice is given as part of the safe harbor notice at the beginning of the year that is a variation on the "maybe" notice discussed above, which our friend, Derrin Watson, suggests should be called the "Maybe Not" notice. Under this option, the plan that is a documented safe harbor plan as of the beginning of the year would provide as part of its notice (i.e., before the beginning of the plan year) that the plan might be amended to remove the safe harbor during the year. For the record, I still think the timing is ridiculous.. Thanks,

Apparently the IRS is taking its cue's from HHS, throwing a new rule for 2014 SH Notices that people have been sending out since October 1. Bravo IRS. Bravo. Thank you for adding a terrific incentive for employers NOT to provide a Safe Harbor Plan to its employees by making the burden for discontinuing a costly and generous benefit so high. http://www.ferenczypaul.com/Documents/FlashPoint/11_15_13_FlashPoint_.Treasury_and_IRS_Finalize_Rules_on_Suspending_Contributions_to_Safe_Harbor_401k_Planpdf.pdf

That is priceless... It's almost as though they do not realize that taxpayers see a notice from the IRS and automatically assume there must be a problem.

I have set up non-calendar year plans for the sole purpose of getting around the "stub" period in the 4th quarter. What you're doing is basically the same thing, even if your objective really was just to switch to a calendar year. Whether by sheer coincidence or good plan design consultation, it is legal either way.