austin3515

SCratch that, got a better question. Small plan wiht just one NHCE deferring. The way I see it, I can essentially do a bottom up QMAC for this one employee until testing is passed. Since she is the only employee, her match rate is the representative match rate, and thereefore the test on targeted matching contributions would be passed by default. Seems like a glitch in the rule for small plans, but I think it works. Anyone?

Someone can get a 5% QNEC plus a 5% QMAC w/o violating the targeting rules, right?

Because the 401k already exists.

expemption frm the ADP test.

I mentioned it was standardized, which I meant to imply that there is no hours requirement for actives, but a 500 hour requirement for terms. Because you do need to be employed on the last day of the Plan Year to get a contribution UNLESS you work 500 hours, it does seem to me that no one has earned an allocation until they have worked 500 hours. In other words, there is only a last day rule for people who work less than 500 hours. Therefore, once you work 500 hours, the last day rule is removed, and you have accrued a right to an allocation. The application is similar to a regular last day rule where the allocation condition is not satisfied until you work on the last day of the plan year. I think I feel pretty good about this... But please disagree with me if you feel like it...

When can I amend the allocation methods of a standardized plan? Before anyone works 500 hours or before the first day of the plan year?

Is it possible? Sure, it's possible. However most documents indicate that the loan is payable on the occurence of a distributable event, which severance from emplymnent would be. So if your document says that, then you are out of luck (barring an amendment).

Call me crazy, but do I not have a favorable opinion on my prototype which calls for using forfeitures to reduce the safe harbor? Hooray for the IRS discovering this ridiculous nuance in the law, but it's just too late. They should have thought of that before they gave me a favorable opinion letter. And for crying out loud, who's making the decisions on this type of stuff? What bothers me the most is that it is such an indirect "stretch" interpreation (even if it is a literal interpretation) that has really dramatic implications for these top heavy SH plans. So either choose to interpret it differently, or change the reg. Interstingly I was talking to a higher up at a big document provider on a totally unrelated issue and expressed my hope that one day the IRS would provide clarification on that unrelated issue. The higher-up said it's not always wise to push them for a "ruling" because you won't always like the answer (i.e., no answer was better than a bad answer). Boy does that apply here...

If you're company sponsoring the plan is a corp, then the only people you need to be concerned with are those that are getting w-2 wages from the company (assumign your doing everything the way you are supposed to). An investor who is an employee of the corp should obviously being getting compensation from the corp anyway. Just getting a K-1 fromt he parent company doiesn't make you an emlpuee. In fact, there probably isn't any self employment income anyway - Box 14A - is that right?

We doint know the filing acknowledgment ID, the prior tpa is being unresponsive, etc. (hypothetical situation, but I'm not seeing an obvious workaround, and this woiuld seem to be a common situation).

IF you want a 403b for the exedcutive director and 401k for the employees, I assume the 401k must have immeidate eligiblity to satisfy universal availability, correct?

The point is, whether or not there is a controlled group is only relevant in determining whether or not there are two grouips of employees that need to be tested together. So you said the LLC doesn't want to adopt the plan, but it has no employees so no need for a plan in the first place. Simply owning a company as an investor does not make you an employee that needs to be included in testing.

In general, no. You can have different eligiblity for different groups of people, and you are complying with 410(a), which governs eligiblity. But I suppose if you had two employees in a startup, 1 an owner and one a part time employee scheduled for 25 hours a week, that could be a problem.

As a point of clarification, the LLC actually has its own employees, correct? You had referred to it as a holding company at one point which suggest it does not have any operations.

I recall trying to write in "various" in teh date range aqnd having them reject it. Positively ridiculous if you ask me.

The purpose is to distinguish between the 2009 plan year and, say, the 2007 plan year that you filed under DFVC but for which you had to use the 2009 form.

Beautiful, thanks!!

Wasn;t there a deadline coming up on this for 10/31? Soimething about if you apply for the PTIN by 10/31 you will not need to take the comptetency test for a while? When will these questions be answered?

They let their participants invest in the same banks CD's. Is this a PT? I seem to recall there were some hoops they had to jump through to avoid a PT - I didn't think it was just a straight exemption of any kind.

So since we all agree they are valid concerns, wouldn't amending be a good way to provide better service? And doing an amendment would be a snap, especially since it is an internal process. But the trick is getting the acknowledgement id - anyone have any ideas?

We're more concerned about correspondence going to someone other than the trustee. For example, an IRS audit letter not getting to the right place because no one knows who John Doe is. Also, some trustees are sensitive to this kind of thing too. They don;t want to see someone else's name on their plan. I can think of one who would probably have a stroke if this ever happened! And of course, no one wants to clear something like this up in federal court - best to stay out of federal court and keep the 10 grand in attorney's fees in your pocket!

Does anyone know how to get this out of IFILE?? I need to do an amended through web-client (because our name showed up as the plan administrator on the 5500, which is unavoidable in IFILE, I've been told...

I submitted a form at 4:00 and it was filing received by 6:30. It was an audited plan with attachments and we had no problems at all. For waht it's worth. Ken, I would be curious to know if you are planning on making the login process easier. For example, I am very attracted to FT Williams method, which is they are sent an email on publishing with a confirmation which they simply enter into the web-site, thus avoiding a second set of login information. Is there a reason you opted for the higher security? It just occured to me now that perhaps it is because you are storing their signer credentials for them? Does FT Williams save the DOL credentials?

Good news is they just sent out an email saying that broiugh on a new server and things are moving a LOT quicker out there. Just want to make sure they get props for trying to do the right thing...

Are people going nuts trying to get clients to signh the hard-copy by 10/15, or taking it on faith that if they efiled by 10/15, and subsequently sign the hard-copy they should be all set as long as its within a couple of days? Generally, or course, not an issue but on 10/15 it becomes an iomportant question!