austin3515

They never responded, so I just resent my question to them. But I did find this oddly enough from a Q&A in their archives: http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/54.4975-11 (e) Multiple plans— (1) General rule. An ESOP may not be considered together with another plan for purposes of applying section 401(a) (4) and (5) or section 410(b) unless: (i) The ESOP and such other plan exist on November 1, 1977, or (ii) Paragraph (e)(2) of this section is satisfied. (2) Special rule for combined ESOP's. Two or more ESOP's, one or more of which does not exist on November 1, 1977, may be considered together for purposes of applying section 401(a) (4) and (5) or section 410(b) only if the proportion of qualifying employer securities to total plan assets is substantially the same for each ESOP and: (i) The qualifying employer securities held by all ESOP's are all of the same class; or (ii) The ratios of each class held to all such securities held is substantially the same for each plan. (3) Amended coverage, contribution, or benefit structure. For purposes of paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section, if the coverage, contribution, or benefit structure of a plan that exists on November 1, 1977 is amended after that date, as of the effective date of the amendment, the plan is no longer considered to be a plan that exists on November 1, 1977.

Safe Harbor 401k Plan with 3% SHNEC going to the ESOP. May I permissively aggregate the 3% SHNEC going to the ESOP with a 6% profit sharing going to the owners in the PS Plan? Assuming of course I pass rate group testing. Both Plans are sponsored by the same employer and have the same plan year. [originally posted in ESOP section]

I just looked back in my emails. I requested the cite, but they never got back to me. Sorry. It wasn't even my plan, so I don't know the outcome. It was for a friend of mine who is a CPA plan auditor.

I've always thought of it like this - someone retires in 2013 at age 75 (just to keep it simple), they're first distribution calendar year is 2013. If they roll it out to an IRA in 2013 without taking the RMD first, they will never take their 2013 RMD, because the 12/31/2012 balance in the IRA is zero. Therefore, you must take it before you close. That is of course the logic that was used when writing the regs in the first place.

401k plan permits SDBA for ALL employee, but most people (including all NHCE's) leave their money in the regular mutual fund only platform. The recordkeeper will allow in-kind transfers on the SDBA's but of course not on the regular platform. I am assuming that even though only owners/HCE's have their money in SDBA's that it would not be discriminatory to amend the plan to provide that "in-kind transfers of securities is permitted for the Self Directed Brokerage Accounts.

Here's my philosophy: The REGS prohibit amendments to anything to do with Safe HArbor. So I say, OK, no amendments to definition of Comp, I can't change a pay-period match calc to an annual calc, I can't make eligibility more restrictive. The EOB actually says it would be "ridiculous to preclude an amendment that expands eligibility to another group of employees because that would be contrary to public policy" or something to that affect, and I agree whole heartedly. But in my opinion, to disallow the following is also ridiculous (as some TPA's do): Automatic rollovers, enhancement of vesting schedule, use of forfeitures, addition of early retirement, addition of auto enrollment (similar logic to EOB's take on eligibility expansions), adition of in-service distributions, addition of loans. (incidentally, perhaps removing loans I would have a problem with because it may have influenced a participants decision to defer, a criteria cited by the EOB). I also don't have a problem changing a SH plan to new comp from integrated, because it has nothing to do with Safe Harbor and would not influence a participant's decision to defer. Maybe I will live to regret my cavalier attitude, but to date, the IRS has not explicitly prohibited such amendments. I suppose based on the above idiotic position in the revenue procedure, I would tell a client that they cannot add in-plan roth conversions mid-year (although they left the door open for those that are based on distributable events), but again, they did not prohibit anything else, and because the REGS allow for it, well by golly so do I. They must have something better to do.

Does each plan pass coverage independently treating all other plan participants outside of their own plan as not benefitting? If yes, that's all you need to worry about. With 20 employers you might consider a QSLOB election. Sounds ugly.

OK, I submitted to TAG. When they get back to me, I will let you know the answer.

Safe Harbor 401k Plan with 3% SHNEC going to the ESOP. May I permissively aggregate the 3% SHNEC going to the ESOP with a 6% profit sharing going to the owners in the PS Plan? Assuming of course I pass rate group testing. Both Plans are sponsored by the same employer and have the same plan year.

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.