austin3515

one more time... (people are responding, but votes don't push it up...)

i.e., not more than 12 months ago? I think that's kinda what I was saying (although I did not know of the 1 year standard). I got the impression that these costs were incurred recently.

just bumping it back up...

You may authorize the distribution. In fact, what's worse is paying the hardship BEFORE the participant pays the bill, because you don't know for sure the hardship was incurred. You know with certainty now that they were in fact incurred. I mean if he's cying hardship for something three years ago, I might be a bit more skeptical, but you don't allude to any significant passage of time.

It is the day the check is sent in the mail. What other rational measure could there possibly be? Certainly not the date of delivery, as this is well beyond the control of the sponsor. So that leaves... well nothing, so it must be the date mailed. Think of how many mortgage payments would never be missed if they went exclusively by the date field on the check... It's better than a time machine!

a) perhaps in the example they made up a rate, or b) Make sure your looking at the corporate underpayments. I think your link is to the wrong item, but I know that there are several diffeent tables in the notices.

In my opinion, this is not quite the old chicken and egg related... You don't get to charge a fee unless you do a distribution, and you can't do a distribution if the balance is over $1,000. I'm with Archimage.

I'm curious if other TPA firms will maintain an annual summary of accounts when this information is already provided by the investment company. It takes so much time!! And client's don't care (the vast majority anyway)!!

I always thought the answer was no. Perhaps what Kirk is thinking is if you sent an email to everyone with the a link to the SMM? Electronic delivery is acceptable if certain requirements are met, one of which I believe is that it must be offered in paper if requested (this is the rule for safe harbor notices, which I think was meant to be consistent with the DOL?)

1) Yes, you still need to issue an SMM, but you would qualify it by saying something to the affect of "contingent upon approval by the IRS." 2) Yes you can post-it. BUT, that won't satisfy your obligation to distribute the SMM. It must be delivered to all participants. You may want to post what the amendment actually was, as this may change my answer?

No. I love the easy ones!

I'm not sure I'd use the term "retroactively" cause that implies that previous distributions would need to be adjusted (although I'm sure that's not what you had in mind). But yes, you can certainly provide full vesting for existing balances.

"Compensation" 98-52 references 1.414(s)-1, and that site seems to incorporate both the safe harbor definitions and anything that passes the ratio test. See "permissable compensation" section of this article. http://www.mellon.com/hris/fyi/fyi_02_02_99a.html Anyone else care to settle this? Or do you agree Wmyer?

That's where it was! Thanks! I remember the camera from Circuit City...

I saw an article once discussing giveaways to encourae enrollemnt. Is it allowed, etc.? I recall the answer is yes, but if someone knows where I read this that would be awesome! I think it came out in the benefitslink daily email.

I would like to point out that this was supposed to be a "quick eligibility question." I find that amusing given the lack of agreement on the most basic of retirement plan questions...

I think use of the word "coincident with" makes the intentions clear enough though, doesn't it? The month of service is completed at 11:59.99999, which is still 2/1 which is coincident with an entry date. The month certainly isn't completed the next day? Would it be wise to kick a participant out of the plan based on a nanosecond?

Or is the question that the parent is terminated and a more than 5% owner, so does that make the child a former key, even though the child is still employed? The question could go either way... The answer is that child is a key employee because through attribution, he owns more than 5% of the company. The employment status of the direct owner is irrelevant.

I agree with Blinky. See what you've started? Now do you understand? The purpose of these boards is whatever we want it to be!! Leave your message board dictatorship political ideals at the door thank you...

I think it's relevant to note that issue ended up in court, which most sponsors should try to avoid! But for what it's worth I agree...

Tom - Off hand, do you know which box gets which result? I'm assuming Inclusive means 5/1 and exclusive means 6/1?

Presumably your document provides for an annual allocation, so on the one hand, you could argue that the final allocation couldn't possibly have been determined. If the doc. provides for quarterly allocations than you're sol... But on the otherhand, you could argue that there would be a prohibitted cut-back because you allocated the contribution as of an interim date. I think the argument for the former is strongest, but that doesn't mean a disgruntled employee couldn't take the latter position. for what it's worth, interim contriubtions on annual formulas should be outlawed. No good can come from them...

My only point is that if you design the plans solely to avoid the audit requirement that you might upset the DOL. Let's say you had one plan with 130 people, and then you break the Plan into 2 plans for no good reason. Wouldn't that raise some red flags? I wouldn't do it, that's all. No regs to cite, because there are none.

As long as the assets are not commingled you should be okay. I'd issue a strong caveat that there better be a legitimate business reason for separate plans (i.e, two different companies/divisions). You don't want it to look like the point of the arrangement is to avoid an audit. I don't think that's a good way to make friends with the DOL. What's more, I'm not sure you'd save much money considering the cost of admistering two plans is probaly close to double the cost to administering one plan for everyone...

Daggonit! But I have to say, you hope for answers like yours (i.e., a perfect site, not just the page but WHERE on the page. The technical equivalent to a GPS!).