austin3515

I think on 1/1 you have participants, so not sure about that-what do the instructions say to provide that interpretation? Also, you only get to defer the report if the first plan year is 7 months or less. Sounds like your plan year is a full 12 months? The effective date of the Plan would be why EFAST (not EFTPS) would not bat an eyelash. New plans are set up "all the time" and its not unheard of to have a new plan with more than 100 participants. Transactions like what you have described happen all across the country many many times a year, so there is safety in numbers. Again, not sure what the instructions said to give you the impression you have, but for example, if there was a pay-date on 1/1 of that year, wouldn't people have been eligible to contribute (the answer is "yes")?

There is one 415 limit per plan even if it is a multiple employer. Interesting though there are two 401a17 limits. So if he has comp from Company A of $270K and Company B of $270K and the plan was a 3% SHNEC, he would get the SHNEC twice. Obviously an actuary should chime in on how a multiple employer plan is handled in a cash balance scenario. That would be interesting...

You're skipping an important first step. Is there a controlled group or affiliated service group? It sounds like no Controlled Group, but what ASG? If truly a multiple employer plan, then everything is run separate. 401k and comp from A are in one ADP test with Company A employees, and the same for B. (same for all other testing). One 415 limit because its one plan. You should be eligible for 2 415 limits IF you had 2 separate plans.

Not sure how big the employer is, but perhaps they will just change the plan to at least increase 15% up to 80% or even 60% or 70%. Lots of posts, but I'm just not sure if anyone suggested that yet or not. Such a limit has been MOOT since 2001. Perhaps the voice of reason will prevail. http://www.wiggin.com/5512 Higher Employee Contribution Limits as a Percentage of Pay. The maximum total allocation (the "annual additions limit") permitted for participants in a defined contribution plan is increased by EGTRRA from the lesser of $35,000 or 25% of pay, to $40,000 or 100% of pay. Previously, in order to stay within the overall limit, employers have typically limited employee contributions to 401(k) plans to, for example, 15% of pay. With the EGTRRA change, employers may want to allow employees to contribute 50% or more of their pay to a plan, on a non-matched basis (subject to the rule that pre-tax contributions must still be limited to $11,000 annually, as adjusted as described above). Allowing greater contributions as a percentage of pay typically benefits lower paid employees, and can help in passing nondiscrimination tests.

I suppose, but I think what I'm getting at is, even they just deleted 409A and 457f, wouldn;t an arrangement such as I have described still work because they employee would not have constructive receipt until it became vested.

I'm sure the employees will be having a party and buying jet skis and things if you terminate the PW plan :) The Employer will be their hero! Shame really of course but it would be a huge benfit at retireement. But someone the participants in these plans are focused on how they can get that pot of money into their checking accounts!

If the proposal goes through to eliminate 457(f) does that affect the following plan design: $50,000 per year, vested in 5 years if continuously employed. Amounts paid out 30 days after vesting. I thought that was just the simple constructive receipt doctrine which is still in tact. Eliminating 457f I would think does not impact that? Clearly once it is vested it must be paid. I realize that if 457f goes away the option for the participant to pay the taxes independently and leave the balances in their deferred is no longer an option (but for practical reasons I've never used that anyway).

New cliuent for us where we discovered that there are 3 versions of a 2015 5500 that were filed, none as amended. They all have different ackID's and are all listed. Anyone know how to delete those? That 2015 filing needed to be amended, and I'm considering amending all 3 filings that are out there. Long story short, the previous provider included auditor information other than the financial statements that I would prefer to pull off the DOL's site.

Let's keep it focused on 401k plans here gentleman!

Anyone seen a write-up about how a 401k plan for these things would work? Are there any special caveats to be aware?

I would be curious to know if your document says the same thing as mine. I thought the IRS made them put this ridiclous language in there.

Plan is pooled, and an exhaustive search for someone turned up nothing. Balance is $800. PenChecks (bless them) is willing to take IRA forceouts as low as $50 I am told (the small balance would of course be wiped out by fees soon thereafter). Are people doing this? It seems like a practical solution to me, but obviously that makes no difference at all! What are poeple doing? Carrying these people on the books until they can be forfeited (in my pre-approved doc I can't do this until NRA!). Is there a way around this?

And therefore no document?

Hey I don;t know, I'm trying to figure it out. What I wrote is basially what the employment agreement says, nothing more, nothing less. What would you guys do?

Care to elaborate?

Employment agreement plainly says "Executive gets $50,000 a year for 5 years credited to a book account with no money actually set aside. The Executive only gets the money if he is actively employed all the way trhough the 5 year anniversary date and is paid immediately thereafter." We all agree I think that neither 409A nor 457f applies because there is no deferral of income beyond when the substantial risk of forfeiture lapses. Do I need a document beyond the employment agreement? I guess I need a top-hat filing to avoid a 5500 filing requirement. Is there anything else like that?

Told an advisor that I would ask around about software that people are using to be able to provide their clients with rates of return on their model portfolios. I assume there must be software out there where this can be tracked? Tracked on the basis of $1,000 invested (for example) with out adjustment for any participant activity (xfers in/out, etc.). just how well did the funds the RIA picked perform.

Sorry that was it. I just want to make sure there is not some crazy rule that will pull these together (shared employees, employee leasing, etc). My personal opinion is that Company Y is just a vendor to Company Z. Running all testing separately.

Person A owns 100% of Company Y. Person A owns 40% of Company Z. Persons B, C and D own 20% apiece of the remaining 60%. So Y and Z are not a controlled group. They both own the same brand/franchise so there is a lot of commonality in what needs to be done. They sell a product; it's not a service business. Company Y handles the following for Company Z, to take advantage of economies of scale: Payroll, Accounting (Payables, GL, CFO's time, invoicing, billing, etc). In exchange for these overhead services, Company Z pays Company Y $X per month as an overhead charge. There is no itemization of any expenses. There is no extra charge in a "bad month" but the contract between the two is an arms length contract.

Wow, I just realized something. The article does not appear to differentiate between an ERISA versus a non-ERISA Plan. That seems like an oversight to me (but I missed it, I read it super-fast, but did a key word search for ERISA and do not find the word...)

I disagree though - ERISA is very clear that you can no longer have a service based provision that excludes someone who has met statutory eligibility. They had a reg or notice on a practial way to define 20 hours a week, but it included that statutory catch-all of "if you work 1,000 hours in an eligibility computation period your in."

Am I a newbie who knows nothing, or is this "weird IRS interpretation" ERISA 101? They make it sound as though no one was following ERISA? All the plan documents I have include the "safe harbor/1,000 hours in 12 months makes you eligible" language. http://www.businessofbenefits.com/2017/10/articles/403b/403b-document-delays-the-once-in-always-in-rule-and-the-effective-date-addendum/

So to be exempt from the audit requirement a DB Plan must disclose in it's SAR the regulated financial institution that holds the plan assets. But what if the Plan is not doing an SAR because it is a PBGC plan and preparing the AFN? Full disclosure, I am not an actuary - we hire an actuary to do the actuarial work. So even though I don;t know something basic, we pay people who know but I thought I'd start with you folks.

I mean in 2018 I want to file the 5500SF as a one-participant plan.

I thought some people had question whether a plan subject to ERISA can ever turn back and be non-ERISA. Has that been thoroughly debunked? The instructions say this, and this plan meets this definition: A “one-participant plan” is: (1) a pension benefit plan that covers only an individual or an individual and his or her spouse who wholly own a trade or business, whether incorporated or unincorporated; or (2) a pension benefit plan for a partnership that covers only the partners or the partners and the partners’ spouses. Thus, a “oneparticipant plan” can cover more than one participant. On the other hand, merely covering only one participant does not make you eligible to file as a “one-participant plan” unless you are one of the types of plans described above.