austin3515

Wait I know what it is, I spilled some covfefe on my laptop this morning, that's gotta be it.

Oh it's important and if you can answer it I'll say thank you very much :)

Mike - I googled it for myself. This is weird: "Your search - dispiary factots - did not match any documents." That's bazaar, the internet must not be working today.

411d6 is the basis for the question actually. I'm sure it was done initially because it helped in testing, I guess it's better for younger HCe's, right? I noticed that the EBAR's drop down as the NRA drops down. But now they are all old and merging with a plan that uses age 65. So I am trying to unify the plan designs with as few special addendums as possible.

I've never been one to let a snarky comment go unchallenged, so despite my overflowing in box... You make it sound like I'm a client calling you for a 50 life cash balance plan for 2018. These are message boards, man, don't reply if you don't have time.

You're welcome to use the more complicated approach to get to the same objective. What you do with your clients is up to you. I have plenty of BIG NOTES in my clients files by the way, but every one of them was when faced with no alternative. Keep It Simple Stupid. Words to live by.

Gee golly willickers, that's sound advice. Thanks Pa.

I like the idea, but personally not the indirect nature in which you end up at 65 for testing. I try to keep things as simple as possible, and if the NRA is 65 in the doc, then I'll know just what to do every time (and more importantly so will everyone in the office).

You've never heard of a dispiary factot before? What are you taking a high school class in 401k plans or something?

One Plan uses "top-paid-group" and the other does not. The coverage grace period applies just to coverage. It does not apply to the Plan's definition of HCE's. Perhaps you might suggest that it is implied, but that is different then it being documented somewhere. I stipulate that it is implied, but I am hoping to find something on-point in terms of an ASPPA Q&A and the like.

Tom, what happened to the Grinch?? I think you should remain Grinchy until at least the new year... I asked another well known name in the world of 401k plans, and he told me this would work. To tell you the truth I can see the logic in it. There is not one practical benefit that is being cut back. By the way this is just a DC Plan (not DB) so I presume the MVAR thing doesn;t apply in this circumstance. I realize this section is just "cross-tested" and not specifically cross-tested defined contribution plans, so I suppose I should have clarfiied that this is not a cash balance plan but rather a 401k/PS Plan...

Seemed like every time I hit post something else came up!

If you are a paid preparer I'm sorry but I'm pretty sure that was a mistake to let it lapse. The following link says anyone preparing a form not specifically excluded must obtain a PTIN. See page 8 for the list of forms that do not require a PTIN. You'll note that 5500 and 1099's are on the list, but 940 is not. Logic would suggest that the IRS includes the paid-preparer/PTIN fields on those forms where the PTIN is required. https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/preparer-tax-identification-number-information-for-employee-plans-professionals Apparently it only takes 15 minutes to get one though. https://www.irs.gov/tax-professionals/ptin-requirements-for-tax-return-preparers

I have to credit Andy H with an idea from something like 18 years ago with a post that sounds brilliant. So can I amend the NRA to 65, but provide for a full vesting an Early Retirement Date that is defined to be identical to the existing NRA? The plan already allows for in-service distributions at the existing NRA, and that would not go away merely because I am changing the Normal Retirement Age. Thus, the participant's benefits are protected, and I get what I want which is to be able to run testing at age 65.

I just found in my Basic Plan Document that we are not permitted to use SSRA for testing any longer. I'm really annoyed that I might be stuck with 55 for a testing age but I see no way out...

Taking over a plamn where NRA is just 55. Are there any special rules to be aware of? Is there any way to use an older age for testing? I've read there are complications with using SSRA in place of NRA. Any ideas? ALSO Does anyone have an extended chart of dispiary factots? The one I am using (which is from the regs) only spans 60 to 70. I think the regs say you can use any reasonable method to extend up or down.

Do we have until the end of the 410b6c grace period to align the HCE definition?

Belgarath, dont you think the FAQ above would have been the method for the IRS to make that clear? They made no mention of any restrictions on timing. All they had to say was "provided the amendment is exceuted prior to the first day of the calendar year." But they didn't. And the fact that they just left that wide open in the FAQ on their website for all of us to read, knowing too that nothing else on point exists, we would ll turn to that for any restrctions that should be considered. But alas, nothing is there! I believe SOME thought must have gone into that response.

Bumping. Do we think we can make the change from immediate to 3 years "today" for 2018 (i.e., befoire 12/31/18? How about during 2019? Can I amend the 2018 eligibility in 2019, based on the rationale that I could have established the SEP in 2019? That FAQ link someone posted is clutch. The IRS had their opportunity to place restrictions on those changes, and they chose not to.

Whoa... on line filing process? Can you tell me more? I’m still mailing paper...

Assuming the top-hat exemption was filed with DOL when the plan was established, is there a requirement to notify them of a termination? Any sites on this would be tremendously appreciated...

These things are the best hidden topic I think I have ever seen. Does anyone have an article that talks about how these work? I can't find anything in the regs. The EOB doesn't mention them. In general I know they are mandatory ee contributions as a condition of employment which the IRS treats as Employer contributions. Do I have the long and short versions of it just about right?

Summary: you have to count service while a temp for eligibility and vesting (but not any annual allocation conditions on employer contributions. Congratulations, there are roughly a dozen people in the whole country who know this. You are now part of an exclusive club! [I'm sure I'm exaggerating, but that's just more fund!].

The only thing I'm personally leery of not announcing before the beginning of the plan year is how much to defer to get the full match. The definition of discretionary is that you get to decide later on, even after year-end. But imagine if you never had a match, and then March 2019 you decide to do a 100% of 6% match for 2018. If I was never told to contribute 6% that might sort of make me mad.

I completely agree with what Poje said earlier about "if the docs says all sources, then include all previously ineligible sources and if says deferral than its deferral only with no new sources." That really should carry the day here and be a pretty universally acceptable approach. I had certainly speculated that if I was a document provider writing an amendment that's certainly what I would write. Which means nothing of course, but if Tom Poje would too, that means something!