austin3515

The participant could take the full $7,900 if only it was available. But alas it is not... The plan limits hardships to 401(k), so the story ends there. If I think of it, I'll take the loan from a non-401(k) source for just that reason (i.e., so the particpant can still take the full hardship distribution). Try this: refinance the loan to repay the 401(k) loan, and then turn around take a new loan from a different source. Yeah, I think that might work!! Rememeber, you need to reset the interest rate though! Also, double check the refinancing rules to make sure you're okay, but I think you will be.

Interesting, as my question was secretly about an ASG... Every year I wait for them to clarify what it is that they mean in greater detail, but they never do!

3H is plan feature for "member of a controlled group." Do people agree that if ALL members of the controlled group and/or affilliated service are covered by the Plan, that 3H should NOT be selected? Being a "member" of a group implies that there are other members as well.

You can kick someone out who is an HCE, so I don't see why you can't go the other way. The only requirement is that you pass coverage. I know you don't want to divulge any trade secrets but the only this works is if you have another plan with NHCE's that you are aggregating for testing. Just for ha ha's, is it something more interesting than that?

Definitely voluntary and definitely pre-tax.

a) This has nothing to do with "gateway" at all. that relates to "Cross-tested" profit sharing contributions. b) This formula may or may not pass the ACP test, but the test is run the same way you would run any other ACP test. The fact that the formula is tiered has no effect on the ACP test. c) What you do need to make sure of is that each tier of matching contributions passes the nondiscriminatory classification test because each rate of matching contribution is a benefit right or feature. I suggest you get assistance from someone who specializes in retirement plan administration. This could be equated loosely with "do-it-yourself" open heart surgery (of course, the stakes are not nearly as high, but you get the idea!).

You should see my teeth...

Andy, that's taboo!! You can't edit a post after someone replies to you! Now Mike's post makes no sense!

Is it cold in here?

I looked at the regs and I didn't see any answer - do you have site you can point to that defines "participates." It sounds like Participates" essentially equates to "benefitting" under coverage, but why didn't they say that? This was always my understanding but was surprised to see it was not so clear!

I'm a 401(k) guy, so excuse my ignorance if this is a basic question!! Looking at a 403(b) Plan which seems to indicate that the employee must contribute 5% of pay in order to receive the 9.5% of pay contribution provided under the Plan. Specific Question --------------------- 1) Is this a match or a profit sharing contribution? 2) What else do we need to know about this sort of a contribution? Is this some sort of a 403(b) safe harbor, or do I need to worry about coverage issues?

The Plan needs to wait in line with the other creditors. The money is due the Plan in the same way a tenant owes the landlord rent. If this was 401k money, it would be a different story. There are cases out there that support this...

For example, if its January, your on the verge of foreclosure, you need to buy diapers for your kid, and the taxes associated w/ default are not due for 16 months!!

Let's consider the likely possibility that there are (in my opinion) two correct yet mutually exclusive answers. I for one cannot find a flaw in any of the arguments listed above. Don't you just love this stuff??

I think I sort of implied that if you're going to limit the HCE's than it would be worth it - at least you're getting the intended result. But that's the only scenario in which I would use it. In my experience, that just doesn't happen that often though.

My opinion is that prior year testing sucks. It is incredibly cumbersome on most software programs*, and in my experience, no one is using it the way it is intended anyway. What you should do if you use prior year testing is communicate to HCE's how much they are allowed to contribute to basically ensure that the test is not failed. If you're not doing that, why bother with the added aggrevation. PLUS, any improvements in participation through education efforts, enhanced match, etc., have a one year delay in terms of benefitting the HCE's. PLUS you can't use QNEC's even if you wanted to. *In Relius, if you decide in the following year you want to run testing based on net comp, you have to "reverse eligibility" which is something a lot of TPA's are petrified of doing for fear that when reposted the outcome will change. Contrary to your last post fender, the first year is the only year prior year testing often makes sense, because you can use the "3% deemed ADP" for the NHCE group.

We were actually just tossing around the idea of including to the hardship form as part of the notice that deferrals will be suspended for 6 months. Thanks!

If I wrote plan documents, that's what I would say!! But the document just says "deferrals must be suspended for 6 months."

Is an employer required to notify a participant when/if the 6 month suspension period is up? I'm curious to hear how others are treating this.

You ended up at 764.25 because this is half of your gross. If you wanted to reduce your net pay by 1/2, you should divide your net check (Before Roth) by your gross pay, and that percentage is the amount you should elect to contribute. That should be pretty close.

See the row for 1440 - 1460 on page 44 of the link I gave you. Based on that, and based on 0 exemptions, you should have 204 withheld. You're withholding is actually pretty close to the withholding for 2 exemptions - maybe that's the cause of the difference?

But if you're comfortable paying the interest and penalties that MIGHT be assessed on a $4 excise tax, then proceed at your own "risk..."

Not nearly enough information man. What you need to ask your employer is, what are my federal wages for this pay-period? it should equal your gross pay (unless you have section 125 premiums). Then, based on the number of exemptions you've claimed on your W-4 you should be able to reference a withholding table to determine how much the federal withholding should be. The table to figure this out is in publication 15 - see that table on page 37. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p15.pdf

Call an ERISA attorney at a good sized law firm, like Reish Luftman (sp?). I think they're supposed to be the best in employee benefits, but there are certainly others. This is WAY specialized in nature.

There is not one. But, I've heard through the grapevine (which is not reliable) that it costs the IRS $100 to process a 5330 - therefore, many have suggested that the IRS would not go crazy trying to find these types of returns. I think this lost interest on participant contributions revolution (in the past 5 or 10 years, I mean) has definitely created the need for a de minimis tax threshhold, but no such luck yet.