austin3515

Don't ask Betty from accounting to bring her new baby into the office or ask her for pictures? Not likely 🤣

They certaonly would not be able to apply an aggregate 415 limit, but we should be able to use their goal functionality. i think I've cracked the code in terms of setting up an appropriate goal.

Well the sponsor has problems too... More work all around if the limit is blown.

I have a participant in the plan for whom we added after-tax contributions. Not to worry, she is not an HCE. She is married to a guy who is an "HCE" but he works for an unlreated company. But the bottom line is she wants to contribute as much as possilbe. What sorts of limit are people imposing on these contributions to make sure we don't blow the 415 limit? Can it be a one-off limit decided at the beginning of the year? For example, I want the client to be able to add a goal to the payroll system. I think it just occured to me that the payroll system's "goal" should be $58,000 minus 19,500 ASSUMING the Employer contributions will not exceed the Employer contributions (in my case they will not). Is that what people are doing? Other idea?

Well, I of course only speak from life experience and everyone who I knew who gave birth there was no hiding it. So hopefully my matter of fact assessment did not convey anything beyond generalities. I think it would be pretty widely accepted that if a woman took a QBAD there would be no need for any further investigation regarding the fact that she gave birth in 97.5% of the cases..

This is interesting. So a woman in a small office asks for a distribution and self certifies... The sponsor obviously has actual knowledge concerning a pregnancy. I guess she could have adopted after all, but boy does this raise the "actual knowledge to the contrary" standard or what? Even in the case of an adoption, you would think HR would know one way or the other if that happened. And that's probably true all the way up to an organization with a couple hundred people... I guess the dudes have an advantage here (at least the fraudulent ones 😁)...

Plan includes the QBAD provisions. Apparently these distributions are subject to self-certification. Is there a provison that says soething like "unless the plan administrator has actual knowleddge to the contrary"? Just curious what the standard for verification is on these QBAD's?

I know but I still have the same question (no stone unturned!). This loan program indicated that the grace period ended 90 days after a missed payment. My understanding again is that the loan program controls (not the "maximum available" grace period). I am considering the option of amending the grace period today if it would help, but I'm not sure if the bell can be unrung in that regard...

Wow, Ilene!! Thank you so much! 1) If you are within 60 days of the date on which the offset occurred, can you roll over the note. I was told "no" because as you said after offset, the participant actually has the money and there is no loan (hence the actual distribution). You can't roll over the note even 1 day after the offset. 2) I should have been more clear. What really happened is a "division" of employees all up and quit to go work for a new company. Obviously there is more to it then that so my client is working with this new company to accommodate the rollovers. So everyone had a severance from employment. There was not a spin-off per se.

Well the loan should be offset after the expiration of the grace period though irrespective of what is done on the recordkeepering system. Some recordkeepers won't do that until the sponsor requests it. Just because the sponsor hasn't requested the offset doesn't mean the note can be rolled to the new Plan...

I just heard from a very very reputable soruce that once the loan is offset based on the loan program, the note cannot be rolled over. Which of course is what Bird and Lou S. said, so props to them...

REally depends on the demographic. The lower paid people it's a much harder decision. Yes taxes, but they barely make rent every month so to get rid of that deduction might be quite tempting...

All of which we already knew, the question is really around what are the parameters that must be adhered to make that work. I've never seen loans get rolled over "immediately." You have to until the sale closes before you start giving people election forms. And then you need to give them some time to think. At one point does this transaction work and at what point doesn't it work? Where is that line? There must be an answer to this question,

So what are the parameters around which a rollover of the note would be allowable? There must be something written somewhere that says when the loan rollover is allowable. There is almost always a delay during mergers and acquisitions and spinoffs where the loans are not transferred until after their severance from employment.

I would agree with you, but as a practical matter, these loan rollovers are almost by definition after a loan offset, because generally we're talking about people who have a severance from employment. I just feel like there should be something straight on point about this... And that same Q&A references the ablity to repay a loan offset and to transfer the note in the same manner. IT does not differentiate between those 2 transactions.

I've been reading up on all of the rules regarding loan offsets and the ability to recontribute those amounts through the extended due date of their tax return following loan offset. But what has not been made very clear anywhere is how these rules interplay with the ability to rollover the note itself following offset. So in my example, loan offset was processed by the Plan as of April 30th based on their loan policy. This employee was included in a group of employees that are "Spinning off" into a new entity. They want the employee to be able to roll the balance over to the new plan. Can I still rollover the note even after the loan offset? That's the big question. The final regs that came out 1.402(c)(3) seem to make no mention of this whatever. 1.401(a)(31)-16 definitely talks about rolling over notes following offset, but its not clear to me if the new regs extend the date on which that is allowable. And even if it did, it raises other questions about the 5 year term as follows: -What if the note is not rolled over for a year? Presumably the loan would be reamortized as on an approved leave, but I figure someone must have written this down somewhere by now. -What if the 5 year term is already over? Presumably the new sponsor should not accept it (or maybe if the loan payments would exceed their paycheck). Again it just seems like this should be addressed one way or another. Can anyone point in the direction of what I am missing?

The funny thing is when I read this I was thinking, "that's odd, because it was really Monday that I worked?". But wait, it was only varied by the degree to which I was working!

I will certainly let you know when they respond. But their SPD definitey says "you can get a loan and if you want the loan program ask for it." So perhaps the only mandatory disclosure is the existence of a loan program in the first place and not any of the details.

Can someone please explain to me when/if a client needs to provide participants with a copy of a loan program. Is it solely upon request? Relius's 401k documents seem to include all relevant provisions in the SPD BUT for some reason the 403b document does not. Just curious what the rules are concerning this stuff.

Has anyone moved their desktops out to a cloud based environment, and if so with who? We just started talking to "Infinitely Virtual" which seems like an interesting approach. Unlike Azure, where we have to hire an IT firm to build the whole thing out, this platform seems like it's ready made with all the bells and whistles. I know there are other firms out there like them, and curious to know what others have used.

OK but someone elects 75% of pay and makes $500 a week. Their health care is $250 a week. My opinion is a zero check and all is done and all is well. I mean at some point I think you just have to be practical, and collecting from a next paycheck is maybe just a wee bit impractical. Maybe a better word is imposslbe?

have I been mistaken all these years in assuming that there is a hierarchy of deductions as follows: payroll taxes health insurance voluntary deductions, like 401(k) And if the net is insufficent the 401k is just less because you have to the CASH to defer in the arrangement. Maybe I'm mistaken but I really thought that's how it worked.

It would just be a zero check? And that sounds ok since the waiter/waitress is walking out of there with a wad of cash in her pocket, right? It's not exactly as though they didnt get paid.

If a) I win the business and b) I remember, you bet 🤣

Well I would think this would be the most correct answer as well, but someone indicated that you can't contribute 401k from money you already have. They're processing the funds thorugh payroll on Friday, but they put the money in their pocket last week. I guess I see the point but if one takes that position, then that waitress working to support her 2 kids is seriously hampered. I think I'll advocate for her to my client and recommend applying 401k against all taxable income including tips. Come to think of it my pre-approved document gives me the OPTION of excluding it. It is not a requirement to exclude it. I think this solves my problem!! Regardless of the definition of Compensation selected in the Adoption Agreement, the Administrator may adopt a uniform policy for purposes of determining the amount of a Participant's Elective Deferrals by excluding "non-cash Compensation." For purposes of this Section, "non-cash Compensation" means tips