austin3515

If Mike Myers only knew the joy he brought to these boards...

Geeze... I found the same site, and EOB agrees, no pro ration. My only question is where the heck did I see this? I know I saw it somewhere! We use the Corbel docs and in the prototype it does say the following after the "period for determining matching contribution:" "any compensation or dollar limitation used in the determining the match will be based on the applicable period." That seems to imply there was at least a requirement at one time. Was this change relatively recent? Was it part of the final 401k regs?

Little known gem: What you are really supposed to do when benefits are calculated in a period of time less than year is divide the max comp limit by the number of periods in the year. That figure is the max comp for the particular period regardless of what happens in the other periods. So for example assume the match is calced quarterly. Max comp for each quarter is $57,500 (225K/4), even if in Q-1 he/she earns $100,000 and Q-2 he/she earns $10,000 (comp for Q1 is $57,500 and for W2 its $10,000). I can find a site if I must...

Right now we need to data enter expense ratios for all of the funds we use (we are an RIA) in our various. We get all of our performance data from Principia, but we cannot download expense ratios for some crazy reason. Does anyone know of a good solution to obtain downloadable expense ratio information?

Done done and done. I got similar answers from other reputable sources.

We're amending our prototype for the 415 regs. I know we need to send a copy of the amendment to our clients, but does it need to be copy of the EXECUTED amendment? Or can it simply indicate "/s/Austin Powers" to indicate that the original is on file in our office?

The regular match is NOT a QMAC. Its just a regular match that is made which does not blow your safe harbor. So assuming your document allows hardships from your regular matching contributions, hardships are okay.

Thanks MaryMM! There is no way you can discriminate in favor of an HCE IN a qualified plan through something that takes place OUTSIDE the plan. As long as you operate the plan in accordance with its terms, your OK in my book.

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?