austin3515

RBG, are you sure you're not thinking of John Hancock? I didn't think Empower was Canadian, but I know JH is.

Well thats good but its still unsupportable to write a check today and call it 2018 comp. And I go back to my original statement which is based on what you just said the sole proprietorship has not adopted the plan anyway. So that's 2 very compelling reasons it won't work.

Creative I guess, but sorry Charlie, no cigar. It is doubtful that the "Schedule C" adopted the Plan. So it it is still not eligible. And that solution would be classified as trying to beat the system :)

I dunno I think the circumstances should be relevant. How was it accounted for. If a daily val platform was allocated to his 401k account. If it was FBO was it deposited to his own personal account. Doesn't seem to fair that someone should be beguiled out of $9,000 due to a transition period expecially when, depsite lack of any good advice, it is really a very understandable mistake.

I don't think I necessarily agree. To me he has ZERO w-2 wages. Because he's an S-Corp he has zero eligible comp. The $9,000 is ineligible and he needs to have 100% returned as a mistake of fact. And he needs a new CPA if that CPA did not mention the need for W-2 wages when he/she completely changed the lay of the land.

Yeah, I had to give up "Danger" because people kept telling me it was a ridiculous middle name, so I switched it to 3515, much more normal!

Please, call me Austin :)

Correct, in the "Other" section. That was their solution when I brought this up to them a couple of years ago.

Very impressive work from that group.

1) If it's not taxable it is not wages and not eligible. So if the traveling salesman submits $7,000 of mileage based on the IRS approved rate under an "accountable plan" that does not mean that he has more eligible compensation (nor should it). The individual is merely incurring legitimate business expenses on behalf of his employer. 2) You mentioned FSA. Those are deductions that reduce taxable income and your document likely specifically says you should add it back (pre=tax deferrals under 125).

Kevin C, Is tha ASC again? Corbel told me to embed that language in the special provisions.

Yeah both would be based on "gross".

Plan A matches based on total gross pay, but for purposes of the match, they want to amend the Plan effective 1/1/2020 to exclude a lot of different compensation items. I assume I still have the flexibility to leave the plan on prior year testing, thus getting one more year of the "inflated" ACP results? In other words, I know in 2020 the ACP average for the NHCE's is going to take a hit, but I'll still be using the 2019 averages anyway. I suppose it's the flip side of a company discontinuing the match in 2019, forgetting to switch to current year testing, and then resuming the match in 2020 (a scenario we all agree means 100% refunds for the HCE's).

So in other words, it would be a luxury that I'm sure my clients will not pay for...

Well then I would be ok with it! I just have not ever seen such a document. But maybe its because never asked. Although perhaps too attorneys only do it when requested and perhaps then for a fee? i.e., is it a standard procedure that is always done to "restate" into a working copy each time?

Buisness owner has Mom come in for 10 hours a year. Comp is $450. Now she was eligible once upon a time, she worked in the office for about a year and hit her 1,000 hour requirement. Needless to say as a zero in the test, she has a nice favorable impact on testing. Now I read through the Carol Gold Memo and Relius's response, and the memo certainly could have made accusations about this type of arrangement, but does not in any way (focsing instead on young NHCE's and frankly only the most obnoxious of scenarios). So would you exclude her from the testing based on the Carol Gold thought process or include her without worry because Carol Gold never even mentioned this. I'm feeling pretty good about including her but was curious what others thought. http://www.relius.net/News/TechnicalUpdateDetails.aspx?T=P&1=1&ID=628

Now this statement sent chills down my spine. Do you know how hard it is to administer a plan that is held together with duct tape like this? It's an absolute nightmare. Since this new DL elimination came out, this is the number one thing I fear. A 75 page document with 12 amendments. Terrifying. Absolutely terrifying.

Scout's honor I almost uysed that firm in my example! I guess my point is, my God who is maintaining the document otherwise? You'd better have a DHC keeping it updatd for law changes, etc. I remember the other scenario I thought of, is an auditing firm insisting that its clients obtain an independent review. I actually think within a few years as the DL's get more and more stale this will turn into a big thing in that scenario. If DHC made a mistake would they admit it or try and bury it? Who knows, but of course there is an incentive to bury it and hence a lack of independence, and independence is the whole point of an audit.

So if I use the ERISA Attorney Firm of ABC to draft my ERISA document, I'm sure they will be thrilled that we're going to go to firm XYZ to review their work.... I have read these websites and definitely see the market for this but I just don;t see it as a practical business model. Perhaps in the Fortune 500-like market place, but not in the less than 500 life world. That's my theory anyway. As a TPA with relationships with the ABC attorneys I'm certainly not recommending my clients call XYZ (and as far as I know, neither have the ABC attorneys). Some of you I think are the ABC attorneys. What are you doing?

Ha! No good deed goes unpunished. Too bad your client didn't procrastinate like mine do. Sometimes it works out!

I find that it always helps to preface these conversations with "ya know, the IRS calls them SIMPLE's but they're not so simple after all!" Hardy har har. ?

So a client calls you and says "someone's last day in the office was 2/27th, what should I enter on your census file as their termination date?" To which you say what exactly? Never mind, I actually give up. I wish some others would chime in and confirm my suspicion that the term "termination date" is not in dispute, but that's all I will say abut that. Over and out.

I agree that makes it more complicated, but please comment on the simple example first :)/. Then we can throw the complications in there. Most of the time it really is as simple as I'm suggesting.

So the IRS apparently has the same position then. But KEvin C, here's the real question for your clients. If they put a termination date on their census response back to you that says someone's termination date is 2/27/2019--Does that mean: a) the last day they were in the office was 2/27/2019, OR b) that the last day they were in the office was 2/26/2019 and 2/27/2019 was the first day they did NOT work for the employer, Cause I'll be shocked if you're working on the assumption that the term "termination date" is defined in b). And of course it is relevant in certain situations such as last day rule, or even determining if someone is employed on a plan entry date.

Well there is no accounting for a layperson might think is a reasonable definition of retirement. I'm talking abuot HR people across the country, to the 99.99th degree, would all put the retirement/termination date as the last date someone was in the office,. They just all would. All of them.