austin3515

Would computer programming (some of which is custom for individual clients) be considered a service? I think it would since capital is not a material income producing factor...

If a participant is part of an excluded class, than by definition they are not eligible to participate in the plan, so yes their deferrals would stop. The fact that they satisfied eligiblity means the plan must be able to pass coverage treating them as not benefitting. Most plans use the rule of parity. If yours does than to look for a rule other than the rule of parity that talks about recognizing past service is frankly a waste of time. That's the applicable rule.

Definition of a QNEC (401 (m)(4)©). says it must meet the requirements of paragraphs B and C. The problem appears to be that hardship is not listed under (B). I realize that it is somewhere else as an exception for 401k contributions, but apparently not for QNEC's. Does anyone think I have the analysis correct here? (B) under which amounts held by the trust which are attributable to employer contributions made pursuant to the employee’s election— (i) may not be distributable to participants or other beneficiaries earlier than— (I) severance from employment, death, or disability, (II) an event described in paragraph (10), (III) in the case of a profit-sharing or stock bonus plan, the attainment of age 591/2, (IV) in the case of contributions to a profit-sharing or stock bonus plan to which section 402 (e)(3) applies, upon hardship of the employee, or (V) in the case of a qualified reservist distribution (as defined in section 72 (t)(2)(G)(iii)), the date on which a period referred to in subclause (III) of such section begins, and (ii) will not be distributable merely by reason of the completion of a stated period of participation or the lapse of a fixed number of years; <A name=k_2_C>© which provides that an employee’s right to his accrued benefit derived from employer contributions made to the trust pursuant to his election is nonforfeitable, and

My Corbel EGTRRA 401k says: "HArdship distributions are NOT permitted from a participant's QNEC Account (incluidng any 401(k) Safe Harbor Contributions) or QMAC account." No elaboration regarding age 59 1/2. So I'm thinking that if there was an option to qualify it based on age they would have.

I have the same question for Money Purchase money - i.e., participant is over the NRA, but plan does not allow for in-service distributions. I believe the answer is NO to both questions (based on the document) but it seems silly not to allow it in thse situations.

Plan allows hardships, but not in-service distributions. Can a participant age 62 take safe harbor money in the event of a hardship?

Here's a ha ha... My dopcujment was referrign to a short plan year. Read too quickly, and gosh I hate those attorney drafted documents

Got a plan that has a lot of terminated participants. Plan has never paid any fees before. LEt's say our fees are $1,000 and there are 50 people in the plan, so per capita, the fees are $20 per person, and the sponsor wants that $20 to come from the terminated particpant accounts only (not the actives). Now, I know that this is a workable scenario under that FAB thingamabobber. My concern is that participants have never been told specifcially about this fee. The SPD says administrative expenses could be paid by the plan, but no one was ever told that there was a $20 annual fee. The more I think about it, the more comfortable I am with it, but I just wanted to see what people thought. P.S., the plan is NOT participant directed.

Believe it or not, I have a document that I just read to today which requires proration of the wage base for a new entrant. NEver seen it before though.

1) I know my current worksheet works, and if I change anyting, because I'm compulsive, I'll recheck the numbers multiple times before I'm comfortable again. 2) I will just have to change it back presumably in a year 3) It makes no difference. But that's just me

I refuse to update my spreadsheets for $2. Even 2$ time 25% is till just $.50.

Doing a 5500 SF and 100% of plan assets are invested in a singe mutual fund, which is a qulifying plan asset. But the SF does not ask if more than 20% of assets are in a single security. Is this just an oversight in the form? I obviously prefer the SF route and I can't find any reason that I'm not eligible... I just read through the eligiblity again, and thre is no requirement that there be multiple qualifiying plan assets; only that there be ONLY qualifying plan assets.

I don't think the union people get the THM. You should double check that before you finalize your figures for the client. I'm too busy to look it up for you!! Actually, if memory serves, I think it's actually "union people are not required to receive the THM" so it would be a document issue. I remember the Corbel GUST document did not explicitlyu excluded the union people from the THM, but they always said that you could "assume they should be excluded." I think they fixed it in EGTRRA.

We signed them. Recall that service providers were always able to sign the 5558's until they eliminated the stupid requirement.

Do yoiu have a site regarding 404c applying on a participant by participant basis? That's the crux of my question.

Let's say a client sends their fee disclosures to everyone with account balances (despite our advice that everyone needs to receive it). Do they blow their 404© for the entire plan? Sungard mentioend that one of the implications of not complying was a loss of 404c protection. I'm just curious if not sending it to this one group would blow 404c, if they otherwise complied.

Agreed on the loan offset. Thanks!

Participant is employed by Company A which sells it assets it to Company B. So Person A is going to default on his loan because Comapny A does not allow rollovers of participant loans from its plan. BUT, person A is eligible for Coimpany B's Plan and rolls over their account to Company B's Plan. Company B also allows loans. Can person A take a loan from Companyu B and use the proceeds to roll over to a rollover IRA, thereby eliminating the "default"?

GW's participant fee disclosure form for sponsors is asking if there is a DEsignated Investment MAnager under 3(38) of ERISA. I cant find the definiition anywhere. Anyone have it? It sounds like this is probably not the same thing as a "broker" who probably is requied to get the client to sign off on any changes. Am I more or less on the right track?

You're sayikgn ERISA requires a signed extension for the SSA's? There goes my hope that this will be fixed by 7/31...

Don't get me started on the positively ridiculous nature of this frankly stupid requirement.

I'm asking about our 6/30 year-ends, extensions due 1/31.

Are people filing their SSA extensions whether or not one is due? Of course the issue is that we probably don't know if one is due because if we did there is a good chance we would have filed by that date.

Give some thought to the loan paperwork itself. The promissory note might need to be changed. At this point it is a contract between the part and the old plan. They might need to sign a new payroll authorization form to allow the new company to take the payments from their check. Great point, I'll have the participant sign a payroll authorization form. Come to think of it, I think that the old plan trustee would need to somehow formally assign the note to the new plan, no?

Anyone have a sample amendment? OR could it very simply say "the plan will accept rollovers of particpant loans in plans sponsored by entities acquired by Parent Co"? And then I assume the participant would perhaps make a notation on their distribution form with Small Co that they are rolling over their loan balance to Parent Co plan along with the rest of their balance?