austin3515

Amen to that Bird!

LEgally, the money is owed to the PLAN, not the employee. The Plan in turn has an obligation to the Participant. Giving the money directly to the participant does nothing to satisfy the obligation owed to the Plan. No specific site will exist saying that you need to follow the terms of the Plan (actually, that's in the 401(a) somewhere). In the Original Posters defense, it sounds like he works for a company sponsoring a plan, not a TPA.

The answer is indeed the former. Satisfying eligiblity (and passing an entry date) is all that is required to become a participant. You didn't mention entry dates, so you'd better check your doc, if you haven't already.

I think what Tom Geer is getting at is: -Are we in the "Employee who transfers from a class of ineligible employees to eligible employees" (in which case Janet M's answer will generally prevail--this applies if A and X are a controlled group) or -is this just plain old eligibility, in which case the entry dates MIGHT apply. The following assumes that A and X are unrelated. I actually doubt the Plan Document will be specific regarding application of entry dates. If it is not, I'd say the Administrator needs to make an interpretation and either: document the interpretation, or amend the document to be specific regarding the entry dates. In this scenario, I believe the document would be controlling - I don;t think ERISA specifically mandates one way or the other.

That's a little sketchy, but it SHOULD be okay. I'd probably do the same thing in the same situation, assuming all the appropriate elections were signed by the employee, so that it was CLEARLY a payroll glitch.

Nothing wrong with this formula, long as you pass ACP, far as I know. A tiered match where you get into trouble is if a different match formula altogether applies to different people.

You should be able to test based on any 414(s) compensation (unless the doc mandates another definition). As for allocating contriubtions, the document should tell you how to allocate it, or what your options are.

That's not a high fee. That's an obnoxious fee. Your employer should be afraid--very afraid--as a fiduciary. Maybe you should tell your employer - they may not be aware?

Stuart is right about that, but everyone agrees that that is a totally unintended outcome. Take a look in the ERISA Outline Book, because it be!! I think the IRS pursues a don't ask don't tell policy on this - has anyone ever been asked if the spouse owns his/her own busines on an audit?

If they "share" employees, I just can't imagine you would meet the "no involvement" standard. But that's just my opinion. It is also my opinion that assuming one employer in this situation would be the most conservative, and I like to be conservative - i.e., I don't like to gamble with other people's money...

Husband and wife with shared employees is without question a controlled group. Each are treated as owning the "stock" of the other, unless there is NO involvement in the others business. Such is nto the case when they share office space and employees. So you've got yourself one controlled group, one employer, one plan, and NO shared employees to worry about (i.e., because there is just one employer).

Of course they intended to adopt the pre-approved plan

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.