austin3515

Janet - A dull and thick day for you is still a pretty damn good day... I was confused, but after Midas' post I'm straight again (thank goodness).

So if this is a stock deal, A can still terminate the Plan before acquisition, and allow distributions? I think you just responded to an asset deal. I'm curious if your opinion changes if it's a stock deal. It sounds like it wouldn't, but hey ya never know!

You could therefore end up with 2 years of vesting service in 15 months (i.e., if they work 1,000 in the "unamended" plan year, and in the 12 months prior to the end of the short plan year-check Tom's site as this will clarify what I mean.

two words (or one?): anti-cutback. No dice... The question really is it your problem? I suppose BEFORE receiving payment you could resign as TPA (via a letter sent with certified mail). Then I can't see how it's your problem, but like Kirk I'm not an ERISA attorney...

I think he's saying he tested with bad data...

Does anyone know of a model that will assist in determining how much a profit-sharing contribution should be optimize the tax benefit to the principals? The variables I can think of would be: 1) Marginal tax rate (i.e., how much do I save in taxes for each additional dollar contributed) 2) Valuing the impact of deferral of capital gains taxes, and the impact of taxing as ordinary income versus capital gains income. I guess you would need to know years to retirement as well? 3) Amounts allocated to employees. So it seems to me that perhaps someone has put together a model that at least attempts to address some of these issues. Has anyone seen anything like it?

I should've been more clear that my answer is based on the assumption that the doc. says the match is based on annual data, not pay-period data.

I think your thinking of the correction programs. I wouldn't get involved with those rules unless you had a problem. What your talking about is routine plan administration, and you should try to follow your document to a very close degree to stay out of trouble. That includes an annual true-up. I'd set the bar real low to avoid benefit rights and features problems (i.e., HCE's will likely have the largest adjustments).

separate deduction limit Watch out when people transfer from one employer to another, or if they work for both, as you need to give credit for service with both.

I'll correct anything over .10, because why not? You're cutting a check anyway. If you have a daily valued plan the investment provider shouldn't care because the data is via spreadsheet, etc.

THANKS!!!

Rephrased: Actually, the employer could CHOOSE TO NOT provide any benefits to union employees and rich benefits to non union employees and still pass discrimination tests. Participation in the multi doesn't matter. If you read the rest of her comments it's quite clear that this is what she means.

I can't tell you who where or when it was said, but someone at the DOL at some time said "if you're service provider charges you more to comply with the law (or in any way inhibits your ability to comply with the law), it's time to find a new service provider." So no, any additional fees will not come into play.

Any shot you'd share your masterpiece? I won't blame ya for saying no, but I have to ask Something's with my eye today???

If you read what she said closely you'll see she said just the opposite (I had to read it a couple of times myself). That's because you need not consider union employees for discrimination testing (they are "excludable"). Well unless you have any 401(m) component of the plan in which the union people participate (I think? Kind of an odd catch, but I'm pretty sure it's there).

I'm glad to be an inspiration to the great 3 eyed fish

While I find Blinky's remark entertaining, I'm not sure a letter is so crazy. A lot of employees don't understand what's going on on those statements. MAYBE they notice the deposit (if they open their mail), but they might not know it was 5% of pay.

Does anyone have a sample letter to participants letting them that the employer made a great PS + SH contribution for them? I have a client that wants their participants to know just how generous they are.

If your question is purely from an economic perspective, than the answer is that there is no "cost" to the company. You just gave away income. As for book reporting, the match expense would certainly be reported as "match expense" for the year, thus reducing net income. On the statement of stockholder's equity, there would be a corresponding increase to equity for the additional stock issued, such that the net impact on the company's equity is zero (i.e., the value of the company is unchanged). The newsletter may be referring to "comprehensive income" which simply means net income adjusted for junk that gets plugged through equity. Comprehensive income per share would be diluted because of the increase in the denomitor (i.e., the number of shares). You're getting into some pretty advanced accounting here, so be forewarned. I am a CPA and did financial reporting for 7 years.

I bet deathbycashcall is pouring over her document as we speak...

Probably the cleanest thing to do based on jquazza's analysis (which I agree with) is to give the keys 3%. This would make it essentially a 3% profit sharing contriubtions, oh and by the way the TH minimums kick so you better allocate in accordance with TH. But wait, we already did!

Really great point (i.e., because this would blow the Plan's TH exemption), but the doc says that forf's offset the match, so that shouldn't be it...

That was just an extreme example. Denying a hardship from 2 days ago doesn't seem like a reasonable interpretation though does it?

I don't know, but if you go to google.com and type automatic enrollment 401(k) I suspect you'll find hundreds of good articles. People love to write about this one.

The count continues to grow...