austin3515

I'm up to 9 submissions failed on one of mine Just checked it about a half hour ago.

My step mother used to have a bumper sticker that said "Question Authority." But I suppose, in the future, I could do that

Do the same expenses get reported BOTH as an expense and then again as payments from an insurance carrier under the compliance questions...

The instructions say" "Check Yes if this plan is a defined benfit plan subject to the minimum funding standard requirements of Section 412." It then goes on to talk about the need for SB. In the absence of that diagnostic, would anyone have come to the conclusion that this box should be left blank? Now, if the instructions had been worded: "If this Plan is a defined benefit plan, check Yes if..." I would be walking away with my tail beween my legs; but it doesn't say that. Has anyone else been answering this no?

Solo DC Plan. When I answer the question 10 ("Is this a DB Plan subject to minimum funding") as "No" a validation error states "No entry should be made for this item when the plan is not a DB plan." I'm ignoring that validation error as being ridiculous. IT's a simple yes or no question, and the answer is obviously no. Do others agree? I haven't looked at the instructions in a while, but I'm curious to know if anyone else has any thoughts.

OK, money is at John Hancock, with an RIA. RIA Fees are reproted by Hancock as direct expenses AND it is also reported on their Schedule A reprot, because it is BOTH a direct expense AND a payment by an insurance carrier. The schedule C instructions are very clear that you don't need to report on C fees already reported on Schedule A, but I don't see that sort of exception for this...

1) Can someone please explain why the TIAA-Traditional account shows Realized and Unrealized gains on the statement of changes in net assets? It seems unusual for a guaranteed investment. 2) Related question: Why don't the CREF Mutual Funds have to pay any dividends? Is it because 100% of the investors are tax qualified plans?

So I assume your client bought the stock of Company B? The grace period wouldn't apply to an asset purchase, because they would just be regular old new hires subject to your regular eligbility. I suppose you could exclude company B's employees as a class exclusion, and still be eligible for 410(b)(6)© grace period, but you should double check on that.

How are other TPA's dealing with this? I assume all other TPA's struggle matching this stuff up as well? I have tried linking the DOB and the last 4 digits of the social as well, but of course the DOB's are not always accurate either... Just wondering if anyone has a novel solution I have not heard of...

If you bought the stock of the company, just don't have the new company added as an adopting employer. You have the 410(b)(6)© grace period under which you do not have to pass coverage (runs through last day of the plan year following year of acquisition). If you're using a standardized adoption agreement, inclusion of these people will be automatic based on the boiler-plate language, so that could pose a problem for you. If you bought the assets of the company, as long as you don't elect to include service with the prior entity, then yes, they would be subject to the plan's eligiblity just like any other new hire would be.

Has anyone ever asked TIAA CREF why their downloads do not include full SS#'s? IT makes working with their downloads incredibly difficult to match up with a client prepared cenus... Are they planning on changing this? I assume they've been inundated with this complaint...

This is what TAG said: There is not formal guidance. In the past, IRS officials have informally indicated that a short eligibility period may be permissible to the extent a newly hired employee was considered "on probation" for an initial period (e.g. 30 days or 90 days). However, note that the language in the draft 403(b) prototype language issued by the IRS with Announcement 2009-34 does refer to an employee who is not excluded as being able to make deferrals"immediately upon becoming employed by the Employer". See below.

My understanding of the POA instructions is that there would still be some basis for siugning a 5500 under a POA (assuing you conclude that the 5500 is a tax filing, which so far has been supported by all of the PTIN discussions!, and assuming the signer is unable to sign b/c of sickness, absence from the country, etc).

Honestly, I think I would go for it and see what happens... But thanks for pointing that out. When you're wrong, you're wrong

The DFVC is not available for the EZ's, which according to prior threads on the topic, has generally been a good thing, since you just request abatement from the penalty and often times they penalty is abated, But lucky you, you filed the regular 5500, so you would be able to use the DFVC. Eligiblity is based on the type of form, not whether or not you could have chosen to file the EZ.

Are you a third-party service provider? It seems unusual that if you were you could be the plan administrator. Are you determining whose eligible for the plan, remitting deposits, approving distributions, etc? If you're not, it seems hard to imagine that you really are the plan administrator. But we too have clients who want nothing to do with any of this stuff (one in particular comes to mind!!), so if there is a way, please let me know.

But you see, I have the exact same argument because 410(a) is EXTREMELY clear on what is a permissible service based eligiblity requirement. How annoying... I still someone could produce even a Q&A session where the IRS has confirmed this. Who knows, maybe it will show up in the OCtober Q&A.

Is anyone else frustrated that no one can point to a document from the government that says "immediate eligiblity is required"? Why doesn't it just come out and say that? Shouldn't there be a reason that it doesn't just say that in plain simple English? Personally, I think there is a reason. Now, I would never in a million years suggest anyone actually do this, however, I'm still troubled by the fact that it takes 2 giant sized paragraphs to simply say "eligiblity must be immediate on date of hire."

In the isntructions for the POA, it lists absence from the country as a valid excuse to have a POA sign. Check out the instrucitons though, which are a pretty good resource.

But ify ou're telling me "Effective opportunity" is not met, you need to point to where in paragraph 2 I have gone astray (at least I think so). How do you reconcile your conclusion with the following language from paragrph 2: "Whether an employee has an effective opportunity is determined based on all the relevant facts and circumstances, including...the period of time during which an election may be made," " a section 403(b) plan satisfies the effective opportunity requirement of this paragraph (b)(2) only if, at least once during each plan year, the plan provides an employee with an effective opportunity to make (or change) a cash or deferred election (as defined at §1.401(k)–1(a)(3)) between cash or a contribution to the plan" Both of those seem to contemplate some administrative delays between DOH and date of first deferral.

I disagree, because I believe the way retirement plan law is structured, eligibility requirements that deal with required service periods are addressed independently of exclusions. So in my example, people with less than 90 days of service would not be considered "excluded" from the plan. That;s why most plans (including 403b's) document "exclusions" (such as union employees, nonresident aliens, etc.) in a totally different section of the Plan from eligiblity. Plus, I think my citation is more on point, since it is the universal availability requirement that we are discussing. And if what they meant to say was "everyone must be eligible from the date of their first pay-check" then, by golly, I think they would have said that, but they didn't. You may be right (in fact, you probably are), but I'm just not convinced I've got the full answer yet.

Can a 403(b) have a short eligibiltiy period or not? I have an ERISA Attorney drafted 403b with a 90 day wait. I can't find anything in this reg that is specifically failed. The term "permitted" as used in the first paragraph is defined in the second. In there it references all relevant facts and circumstnces including "the period of time during which an election may be made." What's more, nowhere in here does it specifically say "eligiblity must be effective on date of hire." My orignal thought was that most employers/"prototypes" use immediate eligiblity as a de facto safe harbor, but that a short eligiblity period might not be per se a problem. Thoughts? (b) Universal availability required for section 403(b) elective deferrals—(1) General rule. Under section 403(b)(12)(A)(ii), all employees of the eligible employer must be "permitted" [term "permitted" defined in next paragraph] to have section 403(b) elective deferrals contributed on their behalf if any employee of the eligible employer may elect to have the organization make section 403(b) elective deferrals. Further, the employee's right to make elective deferrals also includes the right to designate section 403(b) elective deferrals as designated Roth contributions. (2) Effective opportunity required. For purposes of paragraph (b)(1) of this section, an employee is not treated as being permitted to have section 403(b) elective deferrals contributed on the employee's behalf unless the employee is provided an effective opportunity that satisfies the requirements of this paragraph (b)(2). Whether an employee has an effective opportunity is determined based on all the relevant facts and circumstances, including notice of the availability of the election, the period of time during which an election may be made, and any other conditions on elections. A section 403(b) plan satisfies the effective opportunity requirement of this paragraph (b)(2) only if, at least once during each plan year, the plan provides an employee with an effective opportunity to make (or change) a cash or deferred election (as defined at §1.401(k)–1(a)(3)) between cash or a contribution to the plan. Further, an effective opportunity includes the right to have section 403(b) elective deferrals made on his or her behalf up to the lesser of the applicable limits in §1.403(b)–4© (including any permissible catch-up elective deferrals under §1.403(b)–4©(2) and (3)) or the applicable limits under the contract with the largest limitation, and applies to part-time employees as well as full-time employees. An effective opportunity is not considered to exist if there are any other rights or benefits (other than rights or benefits listed in §1.401(k)–1(e)(6)(i)(A), (B), or (D)) that are conditioned (directly or indirectly) upon a participant making or failing to make a cash or deferred election with respect to a contribution to a section 403(b) contract.

I meant that not matching catch-ups generally only comes into play when the matching rate is generous (and that therefore not matchign catch-ups principally serves to make orphan match more likely). I agree that the orphan match thing can arise with any match formula.

You are misreading it. The 152K numer your saying is solely to figure out whether or not someone gets a new 5 year term. The reg isn't saying that you really have 152K out in loans, they are just going to treat you like do for purposes of determining whether or not you qualify for a new 5 year term.

Not necessarily. It depends on the match formula. If your match formula is 50% on the 1st 6%, then you only have orphan match if the remaining non-catchup deferrals are less than 6% of pay. If it drops to say, 5%, then the orphan match is the match that was "born" of the reclassified 1%. Unless you are matching at extremely high rates of deferrals, excluding catch-ups generally has no effect. You would need to be matching on deferrals of more than 6% of pay for this to ever have an impact because 16,500 out of 245,000 is over 6% of pay. Comp of less than 245K means the deferral rate is above 6% of pay. So in almost all cases, the only affect of not matching catch-ups is creating this orphan match situation, which I think would be unintended by most plan sponsors who I would think generally do not want their key employees to forfeit the match they were given. But if I am missing something, please let me know.