austin3515

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

I think you should consider hiring a TPA. No offense (believe me) is intended, but anyone who doesn't know the answeers your very basic question should not be doing this on their own. It's a recipe for disaster, big time. By the way, who's restating your document for EGTRRA? Who's amending it for PPA? Let me guess, you have no idea what I'm talking about, right? I'm sure you are excellent at your given trade, but it's not worth doing this on your own to save $1,500 a year...

If the match is calculated based on deferrals and match for the entire plan year, then you should calculate the maximum match based on the annual comp limit. So if for 2009 the match formula is 100% of 3% then the match should stop once the participant reaches $245,000 x 3% (I don't have a caluclator). If the match is calced every pay period per the document, then technically, you should be prorating the comp limit for each pay period so the max comp for each weekly pay period would be 245,000 / 52 (no cite for you, probably in the a17 regs). I think practically speaking, most people just apply the same logic as described in the first paragrah in both scenarios.

If a client wants to suspend RMD's for 2009 (whcih is an optional amendment) is required to get union approval for that change?

I was surprised that the document did not address this point specifically, but alas it did not...

Doubtful at best...

Guy names his 2 adult kids as 50 / 50 beneficiaries of a sizeable account. Few years later he gets married, and makes no changes to his beneficiaries. Few year's later he dies. And now, of course, there are law suits being filed since the account was very large. Does the marriage supercede the prior beneficiary designations? It seems that the answer is yes, but our client is asking us to provide some "hard-proof." Anybody have anything that might help? Someone must have sued about this before!!

Does corbel's prototype include that "contingnent on distributing the safe harbor notice" language? If so, can someone point out the language?

If they didn't indicate what the contribution would be, then it wasn't a safe harbor notice anyway. 30 days before the beginning of the Plan Year means you're deemed to meet the timely notice requirement. But facts and circumstances could still indicate that you're ok even after that window. In my opinion, if the employer is still deciding whether or not to be a safe harbor, that would be a factor that might suggest delaying the notice was OK. I think the date of the first payroll would also be a legitimate factor to point to (the later in the year the better). If the notice is not provided, does that kill the SH? I can't recall if that has been answered in EPCRS yet or not, and I don't have time to look it up .

If you're a safe harbor plan, there are some extra i's to dot and t's to cross. I think as long as your a safe harbor for the full plan year before the short plan year, as well as the one after, you're OK.

With respect to how it was handled in the past, the fact that it was done wrong 3 years ago is no reason to do it wrong again. It seems like MOST people seem to agree that hired on 1/2/09 = plan entry on 1/1/2010. I just can't find an explanation for making them wait until 7/1 (assuming the coincident language is in ther...

I've always thought it was pretty cut-and dry and dependent on whether or not the word "coincident" is used. If the language says " employee becomes a participant on the entry date COINCIDENT with or next following satisfying eligibility", then: 365 days from January 1, 2009 and is January 1, 2010 (non-leapyear). This, of course is COINCIDENT with an entry date and therefore, this is when they come in. Some documents simply say "employee becomes a participant on the entry date next following satisfying eligibility" SO: 365 days from January 2 and is January 1. The plan entry date NEXT FOLLOWING the date eligibility is satisfied is July 1!! I've always found it hard to believe that every attorney in the couintry is drafting eligibility that leaves any room for interpretation.

Huh? Why did it go from 5.00 to 4,500? You lost me there... But no, there would be no basis for crediting ADP refunds as ACP refunds. You're only hope would be if it happened to be from a pooled account, since there is nothing in the distribution pointing to ACP (ok, maybe the paperwork..). But it might help to know how all of a sudden the numbers changed...

I just ran some quick numbers and I have determined that the odds that this is a random audit are slim to none... My guess is the DOL already knows everything you've just told us. Isn't this the number one source of audits? A participant calling the DOL to complain about no money being sent in? Might not be a bad idea to call an ERISA attorney (on the qt of course, I woudn't defer to counsel yet!!) Also, I've not heard many stories of the auditor actually calling to announce an audit... Maybe they wanted to hear your client's initial reaction?

But of course the 3% SHNEC satisfies the THM (OK, almost always...)... 1) Comp as a participant 2) dual eligibility are the two situations where that would not be the case...

Interesting that you mention that point, which I think is absolutely crucial (though not to the OP;). If the Plan Year has not yet ended, and the sponsor must avoid a top-heavy minimum, plan termination solves the problem. Where this is important is if the Plan wants to discontinue it's safe ahrbor mid-year. If the Plan is top-heavy, plan termination is required to avoid the THM.

a) there';s no last day rule on the safe harbor, so it would be a cut-back. b) I got the impression from the "OP" that the goal was to not receive the SH. He/she phrased it as "Does he owe anything for himself?"

Don't know how you could legally do that... Cut-back rules apply to the owners too. Here's a thought though, you know how they deem Sched. C comp to be earned on the last day of the plan year? You could use that to your advantage here, and say the Plan is terminated before he was credited with any comp! I like it...