austin3515

403b prototype document from Corbel, use of forfeitures question: "Plan Expenses. Pay reasonable Plan expenses first (See Section 7.04©), then allocate in the manner described above." If this option is selected for match and nonelective, then must forfeitures be used first to pay recordkeeping expenses? In the plan in question, the recordkeeping expenses are paid by selling shares in mutual funds (i.e., not by plan sponsor and not by revenue sharing).

Corbel 401k prototype document. "Plan Expenses. May Forfeitures first be used to pay any administrative expenses?" If the answer is yes, must forfeitures be used to first pay recordkeeping expenses, asssuming the expenses are paid by selling shares (i.e., not revenue sharing, not paid by the plan sponosr)?

Thanks!

Thank you Pension Pro, but the question is, has a benefit accrued in my example?

What it must be like to be "Tom" on a public message board, and we all know who you mean

We will restate it to a non-standardized plan, of course.

PS Plan which indicates no allocation requirements for actives, but a 500 hour requirement for terms. The client wants to add a straight last day rule. When must this be amended to avoid a cut-back? I think that as long as no one has worked 500 hours it would be OK. I see it like a "modified last day rule." IF it was a regular last day rule, we all agree the plan could be amended now to change the allocations. So if no one has worked 500 hours, and no one has worked on the last day, then no one has accrued a right to the allocation yet. Thoughts?

http://www.plansponsor.com/401k_Participant_at_Fault_in_Account_Withdrawal_Dispute.aspx Write-up of that case. Thanks PensionPro!

Platofmr vendors, I am told, will mail address change confirmations to the old address when someone changes and address over the phone as a pretty neat safe-guard. A lot of times the issue with using the plan sponsor is that the plan sponsor may have lost touch with the participant and have no way of verifying the address. The notary option comes in handy in this instance.

So you're saying that this does happen regularly inside 401k plans? Are there any articles, etc that discuss this?

I think the most realistic example I can come up with is a disgruntled spouse/former spouse doing it, but I think anything is possible. Rigby, are you saying imposters often call, or that participants often call you directly for address changes? I don't think I've actually ever heard of an incident

Well, sure, my concern is that an imposter might impersonate a participant in order to obtain access to their life savings.

We work with some platforms where we are responsible for providing new addresses. A lot of platforms will take direction from us when addresses change. Other examples are pooled accounts and FBO accounts (we're talking about participants who perhaps terminated years ago and have moved a few times).

What are you doing to validate when a participant calls up to change their address? We have been either a) getting verificatiojn from plan sponsor, or b) completed address change form, notarized.

Plan does not allow for loans anymore (it used to). Can the plan allow for refinancings of existing loans?

This is an outstanding response, thank you!!

Does anyone have a good payroll stuffer on the Saver's Credit?

but rhen you need to have the papa signed right? Or are you saying to enter the custom schedule, print your documents and then change it back. Or does the ppa just automatically override the adoption agreement, and therefore I always need to put the custom schedules in the ppa amendment?

but rhen you need to have the papa signed right? Or are you saying to enter the custom schedule, print your documents and then change it back. Or does the ppa just automatically override the adoption agreement, and therefore I always need to put the custom schedules in the ppa amendment?

Relius is telling us that if we want a vesting schedule to be 1-33, 2-67, 3-100, that we are required to specify that vesting schedule in the PPA Amendment. If we do not use the PPA amendment for this, then the 6 year graded automatically shows up in the SPD, which is in fact what happens. Has anyone found a workaround for this? Does everyone agree that this is a "bug" as it now requires the PPA amendment to be signed, when really it should not have to be?

It was notice 89-23 and it was definitely obsoleted. They have to play by all the same nondiscrimination rules as profit sharing. http://www.relius.net/News/TechnicalUpdates.aspx?ID=458

Can you confirm that there is no way for the HCE's in a 403b plan to get an employer noneletive contribution without including some non-highly's? I just remember some nondiscrimination revenue procedure unique to 403b's / non-profits. a) I think that was superseded by the new regs and b) I think even that required some level of employer contributions. I think it said something like the HCE's could always get a 1/3 more without worrying about testing, or something like that.

I always thought if you were going in under EPCRS you had to go in with everything that you know is incorrect. Is that correct? So as an example, can you go into EPCRS for failing to do the Top-Heavy Minimum, but not the ADP refunds that were done late. For the sake of argument assume none of this can be self-corrected. Follow-up: What if the ADP refunds were never done and won't be done? Does that bar you from doing a submission regarding the THM? Believe me , this is a 100% hypothetical, I'm just trying give a good example to understand how the system works, and what you're options are under the program. Sometimes you might want to correct and submit for one failure, but not the other. Put it another way, do you have to represent that these are the only problems you are aware of?

In my scenario, the plan was invested in a share class that had zero management fees going to the sponsor. Clearly, the sponsor cannot earn a profit from plan assets.

I have had an ERISA attorney conclude that this situation was not a PT. I don't have a copy of the legal analysis, but it went so far as to be indirectly discussed in a DOL submission about an unrelated matter. That's how sure he was it was not a PT. So anyway, there is a way.