austin3515

If the suggestion is to define the HCE's Comp as 1/3 of total comp, that won't work. I'm pretty sure there is something in the regs that says it is a no-go. Are all of the HCE's maxing out their 401(k)? If not, you could do a 1% bonus for them and let them defer 100%. Assuming they are over the wage base, the only disadvantage would be medicare payroll taxes.

Exclude HCE's from SHNEC, and then give the HCE's a 1% profit sharing. My suggestion MIGHT fall apart if the plan is top-heavy (if you have dual eligiblity for example and a lot of eligibles not getting the 3% SHNEC already).

We use Corbel PT 401k Plan. Have a plan that WAS 401k, but now wants to be PS only. My dillema is that for things like hardship and in-service, the PS Prototype doesn't give me the options regarding 401(k), etc.; it assumes the Plan has ALWAYS been PS only. So I don;t think it will work. So what am I to do? Should I use the 401k document still, but just not check the box that says 401(k) contributions will be allowed and "blank" the whole 401k section? I think that is what I need to do, but looking for suggestions.

I had a prospective client ask if excluding everyone but HCE's from a 403b plan would automatically subject the plan to Title I of ERISA (the NHCE's are covered by the 401(k) Plan). I'm assuming the answer is no, it does not subject them to Title I, because a 403b plan can have lots of exclusions (students, people w/ < 20 hours, etc). Simply allowing only eligible people to participate should not effect coverage. Has this been addressed anywhere? To be honest, limiting eligiblity to people who work "less than 20 hours a week" would clearly involve more discretion than the completely objective HCE test.

I have a client telling me that they have been assured by a vendor that even though ALL of the vendor's funds are available (hundreds of them) the employer does not have any fiduciary liability related to these funds, because it is not up to the employer which funds are offered. So even though fund ABC might be a dog, the employer/fiduciary does NOT have the ability to pull the fund. Are there any articles on point about this? I tried to explain that it is a fiduciary train wreck, but need something to back me up.

I certainly wouldn't give the advice unless someone gave a compelling reason why it would work.

We've been down that road. Basically it involves lawyers coming up with documentation to transfer and assign the note to the new plan. This is a complication a "hiring" company might be willing to do, but the issue is that the "termianted" company has less incentive to accomodate the person who was either fired or quit. My opinion is that is only viable in a related party situation, or perhaps a merger/acquisition when the acquired plan is terminating, and they want to move the loans over to the acquiring company;s plan.

But do I get to use any tracing rules to support that this IS a primary residence loan?

Participant leaves job A for job B. She has a loan from Plan A payable over 10 years as a primary residence loan. She rolls her account over to Plan B and takes a loan from Plan B on day 1 to make a contribution to an IRA to "repay" the loan, so that there is no taxable distribution. We are not transferring the loan. Question: Are there any tracing rules that would allow her to continue the 10 year repayment period in the new plan?

Good call, but the goal is to get him a 30 year term. Also, it doesn't souind like waiting until 12 months after the date of the original loan makes any big difference, correect? In my case the original loan was taken in April 2012. Waiting until May 2013 is not going to make a dramatic difference because the higest outstanding balance will only be a couple hundred less. Put another way, the loan balance needs to be ZERO for 12 months before you get a new $50,000 limit. Is that a fair statement? I've never seen anyone put it that way before...

How do you handle the SPD and Safe Harbor Notices? I assume you DO have to get into that level of detail?

Can this be done? So all HCE's are excluded from SH Match, with the exception of Owner Employees? I would think so. Sounds like an amazing design in the correct situation (i.e., lots of non-owner HCE's).

plan allows for just one loan... Thanks for confirming.

Participant balance is over 200K. Participant took a $15,000 loan in March 2012. The loan balance is currently $12,000. 1) Am I correct that even if the 12,000 loan is fully repaid, the max loan available will still be just $35,000? 2) Further, if the participant did NOT repay the $12,000, they could still get the $35,000 loan. So what that means is there is actually a disadvantage to repaying the loan (in terms of how much money they would net). Is that correct?

I'm not crazy about that suggestion, this person's name being permanently etched into the Plan. And would I not lose prototype status?

Can I waive elgiblity for anyone hired on a specific date (i.e., 11/15/2012). There 3 other employees not eligible who would not benefit from this amendment (because they were hired on some other date), though the benefiting employee would NOT be an HCE (salary is $50,000). Is this OK?

Anyone done this with the Corbel Prototype 401(k)? Is this covered somewhere in the plan document? Does it need to be? Is there a write-up out there by someone going over how to do this?

What is everyone doing for the notice? Attaching a separate fund sheet for each target date fund? I know some providers have one sheet that cover all the target date funds, but not all do so.

And here's another one. Any law suits over stable value funds? The silence has been deafening http://www.erisa-lawyers.com/documents/Bid...llments_000.PDF

I thought the only implication of this was aggregation of the plans for an audit requirement? Also, You don't need a Master Trust. The two plans can be commingled in a single account. See the instructions for the Schedule H where it talks about the plans reporting their pro rata share of any balances held in an account in which more than one plan has an interest. My understandng is that although this is a bit of a dinosaur today, it was quite common with paired MP/PSP. So as an example, we have a few plans where the money is all included in a single recordkeeping contract. We track the separate plans by division. And we watch out for the audit requirement.

So my CBA actually defines eligible members as employees who work 20 hours per week. Do we think it violates 410(a) to say the plan covers only collectively bargained employees?

If there is a loss, how is this taxced? Do they get a loss to offset their regular ordinary taxable income (i.e., the direct opposite effect of positive income on their taxes?) Any web-sites that discuss would be very much appreciated.

Oh yes, because all of our clients put the extension acceptance letter in a safe place that is at the tip of the fingers...

Pathetic. Really.

I got it from TAG. But would you not agree in light of this opinion, one should think twice before not sending the SAR? I mean, what's one more SAR?