austin3515

Becauise of the top-heavy exemption issue, this conclusion is siomply unworkable. The outcome is absolutely preposterous.

Also no word on the fact that they may forcing plans to blow their top-heavy exemption (especially SH Match plans) because they are required to allocate the forfeitures (and now the plan does not consist solely of SH and 401k). Especially plans that do not allow the payment of expenses from forfeitures. Stupid Stupid Stupid. And that is how I really feel. They're going to have to wait until the PPA documents before I pay any attention.

Has anyone addressed this collossal issue yet? Some of these 403b's who have nver reproted before could have hundreds of people to report. Any relief expected? Is anyone talking about this stuff? Allso, has anyone had success getting full socials from TIAA for this purpose?

Does batch filing extensions work for SSA's as a means of avoiuding the signature?

Hey Tom, did you see the ASPPA's ASAP on signing 5558's? I'm still confused... Can I sign for my clients or not? I'm an ERPA... Do I need to get their permission first? Another classic case of the IRS not saying what they mean in English...

If he's making a couple hundred thousand a year and wants to put away $49,000 a year, and tehre are no employees, etc. I think most CPA's are more than capable of such a cookie-cutter endeavor. When you takle non-discrimination and ERISA out of the picutre entirely, a TPA's added value starts to evaporate pretty quickly.

Partial term rules would cover that.

Dpeendng on just how simple your situaiton is, and just how high your incomr is, Schwab, Fidelity and the like have super-simple documents to fill out (I mean like 2 pagers), which they will keep up to date with the rules for you. I'm sure ther are other examples. No TPA, No ERISA Attorney - just your CPA doing an EZ for you, for which he/she should not charge much.

Company A has one purpose: To provide servies to Big Customer. Company A makes a LOT of money servicing Big Customer, but Big Customer has told Company A that the contract will not be renewed effective 4/1/2012. At this point, Company A will be closing its doors. 1) May Company A continue to rely on its safe harbor status through the date on which they close their doors? There will probably be wrap up stuff going on through June 30, 2012, but then nothing. It's hard to argue there is a financial hardship as large bonuses are being taklen. (1.401(k)(e)(4)(ii)). I don't the like "(g)" exception provided because I need to run the ADP test. 2) Even if everyone is terminated in June 2012, what's to stop me from terminating effecetive 12/31/2012? Everyone will be eligible for a distribution under the Plan due to employment status, so I can pay everyone out. I would just need to get resolutions signed terminating the plan effective 12/31/2012, which would allow me to file a final 5500 (only a few people have account balances). Is it that easy to get around this? What's more, couldn't they sign that resolution in June or July 2012 and be done with the Plan at that time (assuming everyone is paid out by then)??

(ii) Scope of consistency rule. Compensation will not fail to be defined consistently for a group of employees merely because some employees do not receive one or more of the types of compensation included in the definition. For example, a definition of compensation that includes salary, regular or scheduled pay, overtime, and specified types of bonuses will not fail to define compensation consistently merely because only salaried employees receive salary and these specified types of bonuses and only hourly employees receive regular or scheduled pay and overtime. This is the paragraph I was referring to. Maybe it doesn't provide the assurance I thought it did, sicne it seems only torelate to this consistency issue. But this paragrpah specifically lists the folloiwing items that may be excluded (of which over-time is one). Perhaps the issue is that commissions might not be considered irregular if they are part of someone's regular compensation package. (ii) Items that may be excluded. A reasonable definition of compensation is permitted to exclude, on a consistent basis, all or any portion of irregular or additional compensation, including (but not limited to) one or more of the following: Any type of additional compensation for employees working outside their regularly scheduled tour of duty (such as overtime pay, premiums for shift differential, and call-in premiums), bonuses, or any one or more of the types of compensation excluded under the safe harbor alternative definition in paragraph ©(3) of this section. Whether a type of compensation is irregular or additional is determined based on all the relevant facts and circumstances. A reasonable definition is also permitted to include, on a consistent basis, all or any portion of the types of elective contributions or deferred compensation described in paragraph ©(4) of this section and, thus, need not include all those types of elective contributions or deferred compensation as otherwise required under paragraph ©(4) of this section This has been an eye-opener for me, as I had previously been under the impression that basically any type of an exclusion is acceptable, provided it satisfied the ratio test. Apparently, that is not the case...

I have a hard time believing that excluding over-time which is only paid to NHCE's would be an issue if the ratio test was passed, Are you saying that is an issue? I thought it was purely a numerical test. edit OK, now I rememer tht it can't be desinged to favor HCE's, but the fact that HCE's do not receive the excluded comp does not make it discriminatory. There is something in the regs somewhere... So excluding ove-time isn;t discriminatory soelly because all HCE;s happen to be exempt from over-time.

The form was actually filed by the client on Friday at noon. I thought it was atl least an interesting question since we were not applying any credentials to the filing. I didn't think it was a good idea, but I always like concrete answers proving you can or can't do something - I think Circular 230 is a good one

They can defer 16,500 + 5500 + 3000, but their total additions can only be 49,000 + 5,500.

Finally, thank you. That's all I wanted to hear Well Thanks to Bill too, who of course agreed right away!

Good point. To be clear I've never done and this and nevrweouild, just curious to know the answer if it ever comes up. I like that answer.

Assume for, purposes of discussion, that it is a 9/30/2010 Plan Year

Forgert about the merits of this plan design which has been discussed ad nauseum in the past. If I did use this desgn, can apply the $1 limit only to HCE's who happen to be over the age of 50? Or is that age discrimination?

LEt's say, hypothetically, the client is out of town. Is there anything "illegal" about sumbitting a filing with no credentials? The filing will come back Processign Stopped which is considered filed. And I haven't "forged" anyone's name. I have heard stories of people sending in unsigned 5500's in the past in similar situations.

It is because that gives us time to talk some sense into these people

Here's one article... http://www.businessofbenefits.com/2011/06/...5ssa-and-408b2/

Has anyone addressed this collossal issue yet? Some of these 403b's who have nver reproted before could have hundreds of people to report. Any relief expected? Is anyone talking about this stuff?

(I'd probably impose it into the template form that I'm using) But the point of course is that I shouldn't have to do anything. Where's the outrage here? I thought I'd have an army of dissenters following me to the National Mall

Siungard was speculating that because the instructions say an "individual authorized to sign on behalf of the client" that perhaps some sort of client approval was necessary, which makes it very challenging. And frankly, even the fact that anyone has to sign it as just ridiculous. Especially when you need to send out 200 or 300 a year.

Does batch fulfillment avoid the extension? I think its fair to have clients sign the actual return...

As a matter of fact I later found in my basic plan document that the $3,000 is subject to the annual additions limitations, whereas the regular catch-up is not.