austin3515

Where can I find annuity purchase rates for New Comp Xtesting for various mortality tables? I'm trying to build a model that will make it easier to find the best testing solution?

I think what you've all said makes perfect sense. I'm now able to reconcile the 30 day grace period with the "12 months after plan year-end rules" for safe harbor. The key to 415 special treatment in EPCRS appears to be the required nature of the allocation. So for example, the 30 day grace period effectively only applies to discretionary contributions. And Poje's point is well taken that there must be an implied excpeiton for ADP correction QNECs (of course I would have preferred an explicit one...) This is issue has finally been put to rest. Thanks for the EPCRS site!!

I don;t know if I would say nothing has come out on the large plans. The preamble to the final regs made it very clear that nothing would be coming for the large plans, despite several comments. Their concern clearly is that the larger companies, to improve cash flow, would simply wait utnil the end of the safe harbor period. I think they gave a few other reasons, as well.

Let's not complain too loudly - now you have just one small problem (tiny 415 for a handful of people), and not a big one (ADP refunds)!!

(6) Other benefits not contingent upon elective contributions —(i) General rule. A cash or deferred arrangement satisfies this paragraph (e) only if no other benefit is conditioned (directly or indirectly) upon the employee's electing to make or not to make elective contributions under the arrangement. The preceding sentence does not apply to— (A) Any matching contribution (as defined in §1.401(m)–1(a)(2)) made by reason of such an election; (B) Any benefit, right or feature (such as a plan loan) that requires, or results in, an amount to be withheld from an employee's pay ( e.g. to pay for the benefit or to repay the loan), to the extent the cash or deferred arrangement restricts elective contributions to amounts available after such withholding from the employee's pay (after deduction of all applicable income and employment taxes); © Any reduction in the employer's top-heavy contributions under section 416©(2) because of matching contributions that resulted from the elective contributions; or (D) Any benefit that is provided at the employee's election under a plan described in section 125(d) in lieu of an elective contribution under a qualified cash or deferred arrangement. I had a client with a similar request a few year's back, and this is what someone on these very boards pointed out to me. I lost track of paragraph this post is from, so here's a link: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-....77&idno=26

35 would probably be OK, but you only need age 35 (but I wouldn't go much lower--if Congress wanted a minimum age, they would have included one). The in-service rules say you can take an in-service after a) 2 years accumulation, b) 5 years participation, or c) after a stated age. You do not need to meet more than one of those exceptions. And in 2010 and forward there are no AGI restrictions.

The safe harbor would be deductilbe in 2010 as an ordinary business expense, when paid. Because the deposit was made after the due date of the croporate returns, they're just not eligbile for the special rule allowing them to deduct in 2009. And yes, there is a 415 issue. Since this was intentional, I doubt the 415 relief that I think EPCRS includes for correction plan defects would be available.

I was trying prototype (non-standardized, though) - I'll try VS one! Thanks!

I'm ion the same system, but mine is not showing up? I'm selecting pacakge A, and I have gen.pdf, but there is no irrevocable election in there??? I'll submit to Corbel, but I'll ask you too - am I missing something that you know of? Is there some other box to check?

We're using a prototype document and we are limited to selecting the options available for a -11(g) amendment. For example, we would have to reduce the hours requirement or eliminate the last day rule. Can we do an -11(g) amendment to select the fail-safe provisions? The logic is that we would be able to run the average benefits test; if that fails, then we do a -11(g) amendment to elect fail-safe, which allows us to bring in one participant at a time until coverage is passed.

We're leaning towards giving everyone BOTH the Roth AND the regular tax notice together. They'll be stapled in one packet together, but referred to as the two separate notices that are included. We're going to tweak the introductory paragraphs from the template which says "you're getting this because some or all of your account can be rolled over to a Roth IRA..." accordingly. What are other people doing?

We subscribe to Crobel too - where excactly did you get it from? I didn't see it in the plan administrator kit from Relius documents?

Does anyone have a sample irrevocable election out of a plan that they are willing to share?

Crobel's response, if anyone is interested: That language was only meant to clarify what is probably second nature. If you match on deferrals up to 4% of compensation, you don't want to use annual compensation in applying that quarterly match. Rather, it would be compensation for that quarter. This was not meant to imply how the 401(a)(17) comp limit is applied. The cite given is the only official guidance we have and I agree that pro-ration isn't required.

OK, I know where I saw this. In the corbel prototype document, where you select the applicable period for calculating the match, it says (and I quote) "The matching contribution formula will be applied on the following basis (and any Compensation or dollar limitation used in determining the match will be based on the applicable period." So what the heck does that mean, if not what I suggested? I'll submit to Corbel to see what their answer is.

Can anyone let me know, in a 403b document is there specific language/provisions I cna look for that will help me determine whether or not a plan document has been updated for the final 403b regs, PPA provisions, etc? Specifically, I'm looking at the Corbel oducments, and having a hard-time, especially with the IDP documents.

Sure it's permissible... Defintiely not the best thing from a fiduciary perspective, to invest in the money market as the default. But for a small start-up plan, there's probably not a lot of exposure there. Plus, if you went to a more robust platform, you'd be paying much higher investment expenses for a platform. Just definitely be wary of people who leave there money in the money market fund and never invest it. Probably makes sense to get them to sign some sort of a form that says "I understand that my accounts will be invested in the money market until I give Schwab directions" to protect against the liability.

I've had other TPA's send me the relius file. And I would do the same if asked with the client's permission of course. You all seem to be referring to big projects. If an ex-client asks me for an excel download of the census report, I consistently provide it for no charge, and by the way I have often requested it from prior tpa's and heard of no charge. If I was going to charge for waht I as referring too, I wouldn;'t charge more than $75, if that, and again I just don't think it's worth the bad blood.

My opinion has always been (as a TPA) why make the last experience someone has with you miserable? They'll complain about that more than whatever it is that got you fired in the first place. What's it cost to print out a few reports? Nothing!! Not to mention that it helps to have the respect even of your competitors. The more people that think you're a reasonable person, the better...

17,000 less 1/2 of the self employment taxes would be the best way to go. That ought to be pretty close to 16,500 if not a little bit less. You could even do a little profit sharing on top of that IF he's over 50, since you can exceed 100% of pay for 415 by the catch-up limit. I'm assuming this is an owner/spouse only plan.

TAG Data found this gem which is exactly my question... The answer is "sort of" but see below IRS Q&A 2009 ASPPA CONFERENCE QUESTION #15: Defined Contribution 401(k) Plan Shifting ADP to ACP QUESTION: A 401(k) plan is tested for ADP and ACP. There is one HCE who is over age 50 who deferred $10,000. The ADP test was failed, and part of the HCEs deferrals were recharacterized. The ACP test will pass if some deferrals are shifted to the ACP test. Shifting is allowed only if the ADP test is satisfied before and after shifting. What is meant by "satisfying" the ADP test? If a refund was required, but fully recharacterized as catch-up, is the ADP test satisfied? If refunds are computed and properly made, is one still able to shift deferrals to the ACP test? IRS ANSWER: Yes, but once the excess contribution is recharacterized or paid out as a corrective distribution, the plan would then pass the ADP test right at the passing percentage. Therefore, if any shifting is to be done, it is likely to require shifting of both HCE and NHCE deferrals. See next Question. Note however, that once a deferral has been recharacterized as a catch-up contribution, it cannot be used for shifting. QUESTION #16: Defined Contribution 401(k) Plan Shifting ADP to ACP QUESTION: Is it permissible to shift after a correction has been made? Example: ADP ACP HCE 7% 2% NHCE 4% 0.75% 1% is recharacterized as a catch-up contribution reducing the HCEs percentage to 6% (a passing percentage). After shifting 0.75% from both HCE and NHCE the percentages are as follows (and the ACP test is passed): ADP ACP HCE 5.25% 2.75% NHCE 3.25% 1.50% IRS ANSWER: Yes, this is permissible. However, the fact that the correction method for excess contribution refunds allocates the 1% to various participants creates mechanical problems that have not been resolved.

Plan fails ADP test, but only using up $2,000 of available catch-ups. Can I shift enough NHC deferrals to the ACP test such that the total recharacterization in the failed ADP test will be exactly $5,500? I know the requirement is "passing with and without the deferrals", but can "passing" mean no refunds?

At the risk of repeating what Tom said, you need to look at the document. Our prototype (for example) says that whenever someone is rehire before incurring 5 breaks (which is your case), they're eligible right away...

My understanding was this: 1) Trustee/Plan Administrator sends a letter to rollover institution saying that $1,000 was ineliglbe for rollover treatment. 2) Once notified, the rollover institution will return the money to said Plan. Because the money is being returned to the Plan(FBO the partcipant of course), no 1099 is generated. 3) The Plan now distributes the money with the proper 1099 code. I thought this was out of EPCRS, more or less, though it has been some time since I ran into this...

Why would you impose an additional limit on the HCE beyond the current ADP test? It appears to be doing a fine job of limiting the HCE's contributions all on its own