austin3515

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 a) I think that was superseded by the new regs and b) I think even that required some level of employer contributions.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.

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?