austin3515

Even still, I've never heard of discretionary trustees doing that level of review. We have a lot of plans that use discretionary trustees and not one has ever mentioned late deposits. Not sure what other people's experience has been.

We have concluded that it is a taxable fringe benefit. So if fringe benefits are included, so is this.

Are you tracking every deposit your clients are making and claculating lost interest if even a day late? And then calculating interest and having them allocate out pennies? That seems to be excessive in my opinion. I'm not saying it's not the right thing to do if a deposit is a day late - it just seems like you would be spending an awful lot of time review deposits, and is that really necessary for a client that consistently sends them in shortly after each pay-period? The scope of what you're referrring to just seems to be beyond what a TPA's responsiblity (or even a recordkeeper) should be in my opinion.

And don't forget to get an election before year-end if it will be funded after year-end.

In other words, Tom agrees with my analysis (Tom, please correct me if I am mistaken)...

We're using the Corbel 401k prototype. I submitted this question to them: Section 4.3(b)(3) includes the limitations on allocation rates. Section 4.3(b)(4) (regarding the Gateway Minimum) begins with the following sentence: “The Employer may make an additional discretionary Employer Contribution as set forth below.” Section 4.3(f) (regarding top-heavy minimum contributions) begins with the following phrase: “Notwithstanding the foregoing…” which in my opinion could be interpreted to mean “even if you end up with more allocation rates than are permitted by 4.3(b)(3)” In my opinion, both suggest that it is the discretionary contributions that are subject to the limitations, while the mandatory allocations that are required are determined AFTER complying with those limitations. What say you?

"Why is the plan in a prototype document?! Rhetorical question" The virtues of VS were not made clear to me until the ship had sailed.

Which one is excluded? I'm giving 3 different percentages, but you haven't told me which doesn't count towards the three, nor why?

Plan has 3 NHCE's: 1 Is Otherwise excludable and gets only Safe Harbor 3% 1 is a terminated non-highly getting only the gwm 1 is a full-time active NHCE getting enough PS to pass testing. How do I apply the limitaiton on the number of allocation groups? If 3 NHCE's the limit is 2; if 2 NHCE's, the limit is 1 rate. But should providing the GWM be counted as an allocation rate? Should the Otherwise Excludable participant (whom my document permits disaggregating for testing) be considered an allocation rate?

But there would be a partial plan termination because no further contributions would be deposited.

The idea of having my client deposit match to two different plans sounds 3 times more complicated than what they have already; I'm trying to make things simpler

FYI, the goal is not to 100% vest the employer money. i.e., that is why we don't want to terminate.

Can I merge these two plans together? Any chance? Perhaps a non-elective transfer? Let me know.

Document provider says it's definitely ok under the law, document not very specific, but he thinks it would be ok. So I'm doing it!

I have client that does 8% of pay every year. They only need to give 5% to the staff to max out the owners at the full $50,000. We're failing the ADP test, and a 3% QNEC allocated pro rata substantially reduces the refunds to the owners. Add in a couple of the lowest paid people with a bottom up QNEC and, hey we're passing. Any issues with using both allocation methods in one year? We use the Corbel Prototype 401k.

I have a client who wants an update on the status of this. Has the IRS said when this will be available?

The election as it turns out is revocable - so someone can change their mind and become a benefits employee. We're talking CODA, correct?

HEre's an interesting twist - come to find out that for some employees, they have the option of being classified as non-benefits employees. They will get an increased paycheck if they make that election. It's not based on hours at all. My concern now is that this could be considered a CODA, which would be very very strange inside a 403b plan... Any thoughts?

Yeah, that works for me! Thanks!!

Participant is redoing her home basement so her monther can move in. One of the largest expenses is retrofitting the bathroom to make it handicap accessible. Is there any way to call this a medical expense not covered by insurance? Or would these types of renovations and/or medical equipment be ineligible altogether? LOVE the new web-site!

So are you saying "yes, Austin, you are correct."

PArticipant in a defined benefit pension plan retires in 2012 and is 73 years old. The Plan allows for lump-sum distributions and that is what has been elected. Is a portion of the lump sum ineligible for rollover because of the RMD rules? If so, does the actuary need to calculate the RMD based on his 12/31/2011 accrued benefit? That's how it would work on the 401k side, but I don't do a lot with the DB plans... I was surprised that the actuary wasn't sure, so I thought I would ask you guys!

I've spoken to two ERISA attorneys and y'all and we all agree that this cannot be done. Now, if you define non-benefits employees by same means other than hours worked (such as position) it would be ok... I also got a very good suggestion, which is non-benefits employees are exlcuded, except that statutory eligiblity applies as a fall back (in my case, eligibililty is just 6 months).

It doesn't seem like that is being requested. I have seen a few of these myself, and they just say "non-benefits employees."

But people are using this exclusion - so how are people defininng non-benefits eligible employees? Isn't an obvious objective to limit full benefits to full-time employees (i.e., ee's w/ more than 30 horus a week)?