austin3515

I should point out that as far as Documents and Administration goes, Relius products, in my opinion are the BEST in the market. The support for those products is outstanding and they rarely require any support at all.

I hate trashing somoene else's business publicly, but Relius has really missed the boat on this efiling thing. They need to start from scratch in a totally web based environment. We switched to FT for the 2010 cycle and have had no problems at all. And they respond to customer service within hours, every time.

Effective when? We jsut send extensions for an 11/30 plan to the "old" address. Is this just fort he 2010 form?

From a recent ASPPA ASAP on the new 5500-EZ. "The instructions show the mailing address for Form 5558 as Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Ogden, UT, 84201‐0045—a new zip + 4 code." Is this just for the EZ's, or for all 5500's

I voted teh same direction as jsimmons and let the distribution go (not a lot of money actually), but I definitely agree with this interpretation. The man made his wishes known... It wouold bother me ignoring his wishes just because he died...

Participant filled out his forms indicating he wanted a rollover, and then dies before the rollover is processed. The money is in a pooled account so it takes some time for everything to line up. I say "the participant's election is still valid, and administrative delays should not affect it." But I suppose if the beneficiary in the plan is different than the beneficiary of the IRA there cou8ld be a dispute. Has this been addressed anywhere?

Whether they are allowed to do this or not is a question for the supreme court, because they DID do this. So let's say a school wanted to add a 401k plan, could they? The school in question is a charter school and is a 501c3.

Anone have any experiece? Apparently (I am told) that ify ou offer a 403b to your employees who are teachers in public schools in Texas, you MUST offer the funds of ALL approved vendors to your employees, or at least allow them to choose from all of the approved vendors. DOes anyone know if that is accurate? It just seems so hard to believe that you have not choice but to work with 10 vendors, or something ridiculous like that...

Also, I assume that someone will be writing up these annual disclosures for TPA's. Anyone know who is planning on releasing one? ASPPA? Corbel? TAG?

Annual investment disclosures, it would appear, need to be made to eligbile employees who have chosen not to contribute, and tehrefore have no money in the plan. I'm referring to the disclosuries regarding the performance, benchmarks, annual expenses, etc. This is all information that (for example) John Hancock is best to prepare (and I'm sure they will). I'm just hoping I am misreading this requirement, and that it is not necessary to coordinate a separate annual amiling for the eligibles not deferring.

Sungard's synopsis of the changes "The IRS has just released the 2010 Form 5500-EZ and its corresponding instructions. The new form is essentially identical to the 2009 form, except the 2009 form had only 6 boxes for characteristic codes while the new form has 10 sets. Read our Technical Update." Why on earth was this thing delayed for months if that was the only change???

What are people doing out there for engagement letters? Are you hiring attorneys? Is there a good engagement letter template out there from someone? We're planning on going full-steam ahead soon, and wanted to see if anyone else had any ideas...

To be clear, if the third corporation does not already have a 401k plan, then it could adopt the main plan as an adopting employer. The other option would be to start its own plan. Not sure which option you were leaning towards.

Does that corporation currently have a 401k plan? If so, then it's definitely out (in my opinion). If not, you could probably argue that it is OK, since that company could adopt it's own safe harbor plan.

One possible work around is to amend the plan year such that a short plan year ends, say June 30, and a new 12 month plan year beginning July 1.

Deferrals to SIMPLE-IRA's, SAR-SEPS and 401k's are all aggregated for purposes of 402(g),. Between all of them there is one 16,500 limit. From 402g: (3) Elective deferrals For purposes of this subsection, the term "elective deferrals" means, with respect to any taxable year, the sum of— (A) any employer contribution under a qualified cash or deferred arrangement (as defined in section 401 (k)) to the extent not includible in gross income for the taxable year under subsection (e)(3) (determined without regard to this subsection), (B) any employer contribution to the extent not includible in gross income for the taxable year under subsection (h)(1)(B) (determined without regard to this subsection), [SAR-SEP] © any employer contribution to purchase an annuity contract under section 403 (b) under a salary reduction agreement (within the meaning of section 3121 (a)(5)(D)), and (D) any elective employer contribution under section 408 (p)(2)(A)(i) [sIMPLE IRA's] As somoene else mentioned, no employer contributions count towards this limit.

Yes it's possible. You process just like any other rollover. The 1099 code is the same (G) but you need to enter the taxable amount of the distriubtion.

oops... Just ask them what to do their customer service is AWESOME.

On FT Williams software there is a box you have to check to idnciate that "this is a prior year filing." I had the exact same problem, and this fixed it. Also, we used Relius last year, and I think that if on the plan information screen you put 2011 in the "Filing for Plan Year" (or something like that) that this would work as well. Might want to submit an incident and ask whoever your vendor is, but there does need to be a way to tell your software what you are doing, so that EFAST2 can be alerted on how to process it.

Ours specicially excludes them from the Basi Safe Harbor MAtch only. It also clearly indicates that we're within the ACP Safe Harbor for all other matching contributions allowed under the plan. And again, I did hear from the document sponsor (Corbel) that this would work. I'm surrprised that you keep raising the safe harbor notice quesiton since I did comply with the SH Notice requirement, in which I am allowed to reference the SPD. So, assuming my document is drafted correctly (which it is), and assuming I sent out a SH Notice that complied with the regs (I need not go beyond that standard), then I'm troubled by where any conceivable pitfall may lie. And by the way, tell whoever that idiot is to get the heck away from your keyboard

When TAG and Tom Poje disagree, Tom Poje wins. I also submitted to Corbel and they agreed with Tom (and me). I think it's pretty widely accepted that TAG is not always right. QuirkyNerdyPensionGirl, you shouldn't give in so easily

I'd have a couple of concerns 1. if notice made no mention of discretionary match, I'd probably go thumbs down They had the SPD, and I referenced the SPD in my SH Notice, so this does not bother me. Also, they had plenty of incentive to defer, just to get the SH Match. 2. if document doesn't cap match at 4% of comp, or any particular amount of deferral, but rather simply says discretionary, I'd go thumbs down as well. I don't think you can simply say "Of course the match will be capped at 4%". I vaguely recall most of the restated documents I've seen specifically mention the 4%. We're using Corbel's PT, which asks us if we intend to use the ACP Safe Harbor. When we check that box, those provisions are all added automatically. With respect to your latter point, I forget now if those provisions need to be hard-coded into the document, or whether or not they can be applied operationally? Obviously my document has no allocation conditions on receiving the match.

This is not a safe harbor contribution. It is a matching contriubtion that is covered by the ACP Safe HArbor. There is a very important difference. In fact, my discretionary contributions do not have to be 100% vested when made, which is the hangup on using forfeitures for SH contributions.

Answer is yes, but it doesn't matter, becaise the whole basis for doing this is maintaining the "safe harbor only" status of the plan, thus preserving my th exemption.

LEt's say the SH Match excludes HCE's. Are the hce's elligible for a discretionary match without running the ACP Test? i.e., would the ACP Safe Harbor still apply to them? [edit: of course, I would apply all of the ACP Safe Harbor Rules; such as not going over 4% of pay]. In my situtaion, I am trying to eat through some forfeitures, and none of the non-highly's deferred. In fact only owners deferred.