austin3515

Is there any way to find out what my ERPA score is? I took and passed the tests, and wodner if I got a C- or an A+...

I think ERPA is easier. There is certainly nothing remotely approaching the DB stuff found in the ASPPA exams for the DB course.

Tom, that's why I referenced the 80% integration scenario, where the EBAR's come out differntly.

IT seems to me very clear that a pooled profit sharing plan is required to disclose to participants the value of each investment held by the Plan under PPA. ARe people doing this? I'll be honest, I have not. I have some pooled plans where the list would be pages long... I've also taken over other pooled plans and never seen anyone else doing this.

Thats what I read too, it just doesn't seem to add up, since you continue to have different allocation conditions under the two formulas. Unless the point is that you lopped off the portion of the plan that includes the last day rule, but that seems to be an aggressive position. So for example, Sal appears to be taking the position that the portion of the plan covering those who satisfied the allocation conditions can now be treated as not haviong any allocation conditions (consistent with the SHNEC).

Awesome site. Thanks! Two things: 1) My orioginal question still stands - does the TWB thing still apply under restructurign? I think a literal interpretation is "No" so I'm at a coverage disadvantage, especially if there is high turnover. 2) I can't figure out how the deisgn based safe harbor is preserved by doing the component plans., The two separate formulas continue to have different allocation conditions. But Sal says that ti works, and gosh darn it that's good enough for me, but I'm just not sure WHY it works.

I'm talking about (a)(4) issues... Sounds ridiculous, I know, that a standardized plan might have an (a)(4) problem, and unless my restructuring thing works to make two design based safe harbor plans, I'd say we have a problem

Tom, you're losing me! First of all, the plan is integrated with SS at 80% of the wage base, so there is not x-testing or gateway. But there is a SHNEC so we all agree that by desgin based safe harobr is bye bye. Someone somewhere along the way told me restructuring is why a plan such as I have described does not fail to satisfy (a)(4). Note that this plan would fail rate group testing (at least on allocation rates), because when imputing disparity on this formula the owners rate is slightly higher (i.e., because the 80% formula works out a little better than the straight integrated formula when over 245K), so no one is in the owners rate group. Of course, now that I write this all down, I'm not sure that restructuring gives me back my design based safe harbor, because I still have two different allocation conditions on two separate formulas.. So maybe this design really is doomed for failure... (admittedly, I have strayed from my original question, but this new line is much more interesting!)

DEsign based safe harbor covers 401a4, not 410b.

What a dope... Forgot to metion that my plan is a 3% SHNEC, and I'm doing this because differing allocation conditions violates my design based safe harbor, and I am therefore restructing into two design based safe harbor plans.

I am restructuring into two component plans, as follows: 1) plan covering everyone getting profit sharing contriubtions, and 2) plan covering those not getting PS due to a last day rule Is Plan 1 barred from treating anyone in plan 2 as a "term with a break" because restructuring requires that plans pass coverage "as though they were a separate plan."

Got a situaiton where a client wants to take an in-service distribution of his 2010 profit sharing contribution (he's going to roll it to an IRA provider that does not allow 401k accounts). Would it be acceptable to have him deposit the check to PenChecks (which allocates the money to an account in the plan's name, or at least segregates it at that level) and then have Penchecks process the rollover? I'm sure there is not a separate account in the name of the plan, but since penchecks is acting as the agent of the Plan, then shouldn't this be OK?

401k/PS plan with older doctor (50's) and younger doctor (30;s) as owners. Would it be fair to say that component plan testing would only work better if the younger Doctor's "plan" would do better testing based on allocation rates (including disparity)? So if, for example, the younger doc is getting more under cross-testing all as one plan, then he would have received under an integrated allocation, then component plan testing would not help? It occurs to me that if cross testing would work for an HCE it should work whether or not you’re doing compoentn testing – you’ve either got enough people in your rate group, or you don’t. Component plans will not increase someone’s EBAR.

I believe what the OP is forgetting to mention is that you have to be employed on the last day of the quarter to get the contribution for that quarter (pure speculation!). I believe this does end up requiring a4 testing (unless there is some specific exemption related to interim allocation dates, which may very well exist). REason being, an individual is benefitting under the plan if they got the contribution in Q1 and then termed some time in q2, which mewans the amount of the contribution must be nondiscriminatory, and the term is receiving a lesser percentage of pay than the HCE who was there all year. In fact it might even be 1/4th percentage which could present some gateway problems if cross-testing is necessary. But certainly if it's a different contribtion each quarter, that would also require a4 testing.

OK, here's what you do: Write a letter to your client with arguments for and against immediate eligiblity, and then have them tell us how they want to proceed

Definition of Hour of Service, Part D. PS Many many thanks for this perfectly on point site!!!

If you have an on-line version, do a search for the word "gifting" - it is the only hit in the entire 10,000 page document!

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/us...48&TYPE=PDF Title 38, Section 4318, US Code Says the following: (B) Each period served by a person in the uniformed services shall, upon reemployment under this chapter, be deemed to constitute service with the employer or employers maintaining the plan for the purpose of determining the nonforfeitability of the person’s accrued benefits and for the purpose of determining the accrual of benefits under the plan. To me, that seems to clearly support that you would impute their service in some reasonable way.

I would like to re-open this SEVEN YEAR OLD discussion because I have the same question today... The IRS site provided by Katherine did not seem to be 100% on point. The crux of the question is this: What does 414(u)(8)(B) mean when it says: At least one reaosnable interpretation would be to follow jaemons advice. In fact, considering the subject matter (i.e., protecting the rights of military personnel) and considering the ambiguity, would not the only reasonalbe response be to do just that? i.e., impute some reasonable level of hours? You might even credit them 40 hours a week since they would have been working 40 a week in the military. I can find dozens of references that say "military service shall be treated as continuous service" but I cannot find defined anywhere what that means...

http://www.relius.net/news/technicalupdates.aspx?T=P Sungard has clarified on all of this...

Plan provides QNEC to Ee A of 2% to pass the ADP Test. The GWM ius 5% 1) When I run (a)(4) WITH QNEC's I find that I need to give A a 3% contribution to get him the GWM 2) When I run (a)(4) without QNEC's, A is no longer benefitting in the nonelective plan, and therefore, he does not need the gateway minimum. 3) HOWEVER, once I give profit sharing to A, I cannot run cross-testing without profit sharing (because that would be ridiculous . But when I go back and run testing without QNEC's, he's not getting the GWM!!!! So now I need to give A another 2% profit sahring. In summary, when I do QNEC's, I have to give the full THM in profit sharing. Someone please tell me I'm overhthinking this, and it is really not as I say...

We're on Corbel non-standfardized EGTRRA prototype, though I presume this is covered in the Basic Plan Document...

Much as I hate to say it, I agree with Kevin C (nothing personal, just not the answer I want). If you look at my OP, I wasn;t sure if the "entitled to payment" language could be exploited in our favor. But of course I also agree with ESOP guy - discrminiation is definitely going to be on the IRS' agenda if this became reviewed.

Does anhyone have that ASPPA Q&A handy?

It's not just the owner and the spouse, there are other employees. And I like what someone was posting about the Eligible Employee definition (we are on the same document) however, it does not seem to reference what you would do in the event that such a person is ever hired. How could this not be addressed somewher?? Am I the only who comes across this issue with some frequency?