austin3515

http://www.relius.net/news/technicalupdate...?ID=345&T=P See the last paragraph of this notice from Corbel.

Corbel just put out this release. What is people's take on the new distribution notice rules? Sounds like there will no longer be a "Safe harbor" notice applicable to all plans. Rather, we need to let people know what investments are available to them? What a giant pain!!! Has anyone seen an "implementing PPA" workshop announced anywhere? http://www.relius.net/News/technicalupdate...?ID=354&T=P

Just because I'm a pension geek, I want to point out that this plan passes coverage because all nonexcludables benefit via the safe harbor. What the two responders are talking about is ensuring that the plan still satisfies the design based safe harbor (i.e., nondiscrim/401(a)4).

You still only need to wait 30 days to force someone out --not sure why you'd wait 6 months to do it. In fact, after 180 days you wouldn't be allowed to force them out. Formerly, after 90 days if a participant returned their paperwork, you couldn't use it because the notice provided "expired". They extended the "shelf life" of the notice to 180 days. When does that new 402f notice come out??

Has anyone found a really good write up of the quarterly benefit statement requirements for part. directed dc plans? The most I can find is a paragraph. We're an unbundled provider trying to tackle the vesting disclosure requirements/investment blurb. DOL just issued this today, but it didn't seem to answer my questions. I'm looking more for a "what does this mean for unbundled providers" type of context. http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/regs/fab_2006-3.html

Long as both plan's pass coverage taking into the account the employees NOT covered by the Plan, you can run two separate ADP tests. If you fail, you can still have two sepate match formulas, however, you'll need to run one ACP test, so you'll probably have troubles there.

Damn good point...

Since no one else answered your question, I'll take a shot: $26,000, calculated as: Total Comp/415 limt: $41,000 Catch-up contributions: $5,000 Total adjusted 415 limit: $46,000 Less 401k contribs: $20,000 Leaves $26,000. You can exceed 100% of pay by the catch-up amount.

I'm curious about the top-heavy question. Do the non-key HCE's need to get the top-heavy minimum? In other words, how does excluding HCE's impact the exemption from top-heavy requirements? NEver come across that before...

I wouldn't recommend having different matches for Roth and non-Roth, as the question of "to Roth or not to Roth" is a very individualized question, and therefore, you shouldn't be seen as endorsing one over the other.

Guys terminated. I looked on TagData and they confirmed no de minimis rule for MRD's. Anyway, I can force the guy out (assuming he doesn't respond) in which case my MRD is satisfied, and this guys is outa my hair.

Guys account balance is $380. Do I need to do an MRD, or is there some sort of a de minimis waiver?

The 3% SHNEC cannot be discretionary, no matter who it's for (sure, you can do a "maybe notice", but that applies to everyone the same). What you could do is exclude individuals who own between 3 and 10% of the Company. Then, you could add a new comp formula, and put owners of between 3 and 10% into a group, and declare a profit sharing only for that group if they meet their quotas (you could put all owners in their own group, if they all have inidividual quotas). The 3% SHNEC is counted for top-heavy (which out for part-year pay people), and nondiscrimination/gateway testing, so you could give the "3 to 10" owners 9% of pay (i.e., the gateway limit) assuming you can pass all testing.

Sometimes I wonder if the DOL deliberates over stuff like this, comes to the conclusion that they have no idea, and so they just don't address it. I think I'm onto something here... I suppose the conservative thing is to disclose mutual funds as though they were securities, so that will be my practice.

Well I pushed back on TagData, asking where the term security is defined, and this was his response: ERISA Act Sec. 3. For purposes of this title: (20) The term "security" has the same meaning as such term has under section 2(1) of the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77b(1)). Austin again: So, since mutual funds are the Act of 1934, they would not be considered a security.

Where does one get a 5500 Preparer's Manual?

TAGDAta just gave the opposite answer. They are not considered individual securities, according to TAG. Their rationale is that a mutual fund is inherently diversified, and what they are really looking for is, is the entire plan invested in one companies common stock or something... Who rights these instructions, anyway?? How could they not explicitly address this???

IF there are any HCE's in the union, then yes.

Question is: does the plan hold more than 20% of it's assets in a single security? My question is, what if more than 20% is held in a single mutual fund? Or a separate account? I know that this item applies only to pooled accounts, which mine happens to be. I would have assumedthat the instructions would have clarified on this obvious question, but they do not seem to shed any light.

Nope. A participant is only excludable if they DO NOT receive an allocaiton on account of their termination and or failure to work a minimum number of hours. These people received an allocation, so they are not excludable.

They can definitely be excluded. A safe harbor plan is just another qualified plan with a special feature. No part of the SH rules require that all employees of the controlled group should be covered. Dictating minimum participation requirements is the job of 410(b) alone for a qualified plan.

If they were allowed to defer from the final paychecks (which I assume they were) then they must get the 3% safe harbor. This happens all the time due to the final pay-check. Assuming the 3% safe harbor was not enough to satisfy the gateway, then yes, they would need to receive the gateway minimum. This is the case regardless of whether or not the Plan has a last day rule on the new comp formula. Make sure you got your "topping off the tank" amendment executed (this is the amendment that lets you bring people up to the gateway if they are not otherwise eligible for an allocation)

Jim, it sounds like you were answering the question based on a profit sharing scenario? The op was for match. I'm with you up till 3 but then: 4) Run the ACP test, counting only the people eligible for the plan (assuming the plan passed the coverage test). Moira, no offense, but if you're asking this question, you shouldn't be responsible for the testing. The rules are complicated and the conequence of failing nondiscrimination can be severe.

Subtle, but I think there is a problem. The terminated participants should get a fee reduction for the revenue sharing, the same way the employer does. Why should all the benefits of revenue sharing annure to the sponsor at the expense of plan participants (regardless of their status)?

We tried to make ours as short as possible, but with the vesting disclosures, it's tough to get it on one page. Ours ranges from 1 1/2 to 2 full pages depending on how complicated the plan is.