austin3515

So the DOL Regs, and EOB both say essentially "All participants must receive the SAR." We have always interpreted this to mean all active/eligible employees plus any terms with balances determined as of the last day of the plan year. But I can;t seem to find anything that says that excplcitly. What do people think? Do you know of anything more specific?

You just proved I have been right all along! Steer clear of ESOP’s! theyre fascinating animals but I just ran out of patience to expand my expertise.... thanks for all the info though! It was helpful. I had never conceived of N upside down plan like that.

RBG has it right. If you have problems in your small sample, you pick a bigger sample. I used to be a plan auditor, and that's audit 101. Now, part of this is that the auditors lack the requisite expertise in auditing 401k plans. Oh they think they know everything they need to, but the reality is that many many do not. Now, some are awesome at this work don;t get me wrong. But a lot only don't realize they haven't got a clue. Also, auditors send confirmation letters to participants home addresses directly to confirm information. So that is how they would get independent corroboration that the data is correct.

I don;t do any ESOPs (something about you tells me you do), but do you mean you DO use net assets (i.e., assets net of liabilities). You don;t use total assets. I just want to be precise about the definition of net asssets because to me net assets is total assets less liabilities. Again, I may definitely not be thinking about this correctly given my lack of ESOP work...

I have a calculator for lost interest that duplicates the DOL output, but helps with allocating the interest to multiple participants. Anyway, I need the rate for the quarter ended June 30, 2019. Are they behind due to shut-down? Also, when I assume the rate was unchanged at 6%, I noticed something funny when I tried to recalculate my interest. I entered corrections dates a week or two into April and the interest calc is identical to dates ending right at 3/31/19. i.e., the DOL website uses 0% for April. If anyone knows someone at the DOL, tell 'em Austin said this one is on me :).

Ahh wait a minute - did you send the notices out in time? If you didn't send the notice out in time, then you're not eligible for the new correction methods. Maybe that's it?

Maybe their an "ERISA Attorney" (notes the quotes!) and not an ERISA attorney. Just becaus they went to law school does not make them experts in ERISA. We all know you can't dabble in this stuff you have to work on it 12 months a year.

Jeeze, I've been working with them for 10 years and I had no idea they were a Canadian company. (just to clarify - not that there's anything wrong with that :)). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great-West_Life_Assurance_Company

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.