austin3515

Well of course in a discretionary PS plan like this one, the point is moot. But let's its allocated out to remaining participants. Again, though, obviously the money should have been forfeited, blah blah blah. So in my plan, the employer could excercise its right to declare a lower contribution than it might have, yada yada yada... I'm really more focused on the fact that the partner did fund his entire contribution from his own capital account, and the uniqueness related to that. Hey I broke 1,000 posts! Do I get a certificate or anything????

So I have a client who (without my "permission") paid out a terminated partner as though he was 100% vested when in fact his PS money was just 60% vested. I explained that this was wrong and they said, "that's ridiculous, it's money that came out of his pocket" which is true inasmuch as it was a reduction directly to his capital account. I told my client that it was really an excellent question and I would look into it... Has anyone ever run into this before? I have a theory that the appropriate way to handle is obviously to forfeit the nonvested portion but perhaps increase his capital account by the amount of the forfeiture. Any cites (though unlikely?) would be appreciated...

You can only use non-safe harbor for non-401k.

Bear in mind that unless something has changed that I am not aware of, prototypes MUST use the safe harbor statndards for both events and needs with respect to 401k money.

Got a non-profit with both a 403b and a PS plan. We want to combine the two plans under the 403b to halve administration costs (sort of) and still be exempt from the ADP test. Can you Merge a PS plan into a 403b? Or do I have to terminate the PS plan (and trigger full vesting) and allow participants to rollover?

I think it would be very atypical to run the 414s test before the end of the plan year. But certainly if you're not using a safe harbor definition, it would be advisable to do just that and amend before year end. I don't see any anticutback issues as long as you are adding comp for NHCE's, as opposed to taking comp away from HCE's.

IF the Plan calls for comp as a participant, then you cannot allocate the match based on full year pay. The fact that the FORMULA is discretionary does NOT affect the determination of the variables involved. Unless a really really bad attorney drafted the document, the match allocations section will indicate that the match is based on "Compensation."

I would say that there is no such thing as failing the test when all you are doing is running APD/ACP testing. You must simply use a 414(s) definition to run testing, such as W-2 wages (either adding back deferrals or not, whichever is better). Some really poorly drafted plans (my opinion only) will specify the definition of comp that must be used for testing, and if your plan does it would have to be a safe harbor definition of comp (assuming it went through the DL process or was drafted by someone who knows what they're doing).

"This isnt some thing you learn in CPA school." Let me see if I can understand this correctly - that was supposed to be a put-down?

The temp agency gets the "I-9" [revised] while the temp is temping, because they are an employee of the temp agency. Then when the recipient hires the temp, the recipeient gets the I-9 because they are the employee of the recipient. Well mjb, sounds like you;re questioning the viability of a multi-billion dollar industry. Good luck with that... My belief is that the industry norm does not include signed agreements.

The temp agency gets the 1099 while the temp is temping, because they are an employee of the temp agency. Then when the recipient hires the temp, the recipeient gets the I-9 because they are the employee of the recipient.

Agreed...

Thank you Plan Man for driving the silver spike right through the heart of my theory!

In a concession of defeat, I found the following in the Whose the Employer benefitslink Q&A columns, none of which explore my question, which is indeed telling: http://benefitslink.com/modperl/qa.cgi?db=...loyer&id=11 http://benefitslink.com/modperl/qa.cgi?db=...oyer&id=135 QDRO - I see your point quite clearly - I was putting too much emphasis on the word "agreement" - I agree that that word is a very small portion of what the rest of the sentence is implying (i.e., which is a general description of the arrangement). It may surprise you to learn that I agreed with you both from the start, but I have a client who would prefer an "escape clause." Although he certainly does not know super-top secret alter-ego, I will certainly let him know I tried

I knew that... My question from the beginning was what does "agreement." Again, I keep coming back to why place this requirement in the Code if it is a completely moot point.

And I'm suggesting that every transaction that takes place in this world involves an agreement on some level. Therefore, to place such a requirement in the Code seems to suggest that it has some meaning beyond the obvious requirement of two people agreeing to work together (again, absent that there would be no transaction in the first place).

I don't think that is related. Your scenario is analagous to my stealing gum from the drug store which is clearly not defensible. Do I have an "agreement" with a drug-store?

Trying to figure out how to handle a situation where a temp employee is hired full time by the recipient. You are required to recognized service while working for a "leasing organization" if you become hired by the recipient if the SOLE reason you are not a leased employee is because you have not been working on a substantially full-time basis for at least a year. However, one of the requirements for being considered a leased employee is that: (A) such services are provided pursuant to an agreement between the recipient and any other person (in this subsection referred to as the “leasing organization”), Most temp services do not require a written agreement. They simply send out temps, and bill their clients. So are these services provided pursuant to an agreement? I would argue no, because if there was no requirement for a formal written agreement than there would be no need for this (A). There is an "agreement" whenever any two unrelated parties exchange goods or services for money, even when I go to the drug-store to buy a pack of gum. You agree to give me a pack of gum, if I agree to give you a dollar. In the absence of a written agreement, the relationship of a temp agency to its clients is analagous to the drug-store's relationship to me, the patron. Therefore, no agreement, no recognition of service as a temp once hired on a full-time basis because now the lack of full-time employment for at least a year is not the SOLE reason. Thoughts?

Thanks! I can get it for just $40!

What is SR? Salary Reduction?

Anyone have a good sample notice about terminating a safe harbor match mid-year? i.e., it needs to explain consequences of the change, information on how to change deferral elections, etc.

Didn't work for me...

ME TOO!!! That's exactly what happens to me!! Jeeze...

If anyone is interested, it is related to the encryption that they are using. Still working on getting mine to work, but they have been very responsive.

I wonder how far down the road they were when someone said "Wholly #$*<!!!" I have to say though, if I could just get the text in English it would be a lot easier to navigate!!