austin3515

I have actually been known to sing publicly (I went to summer camp for 12 or 15 years and have no problem making a fool of myself). But man I just don't know if I could sign that song and even if I could, what would my client say??

He has set the bar high, but you're right there...

That's fabulous... It's too bad it is unusuable because it is absolutely hysterical...

This might sound strange but does anyone have a script for an enrollment meeting, where the focus is on motivating people to save more? So stuff like "Social security is not enough" and "to replace income in retirement you need to save 10% a year" and "the longer you wait the harder it gets to meet your goals because of compounding, etc." Maybe not a script per se, but detailed talking points. I know everyone has their own flavor to these things, but the good advisors I have watched do a fantastic job of motivating people to save with these little tid-bits. I'm not talking about anything to do with the investments, just education on the importance of saving. Thanks!

i don't know about your document but my document says any changes tot the employer information do not require an amendment. That being said, I would probably do a restatement, or at least an "amendment" to change the information to keep the paper trail clear. Probably would definitely need an SMM too.

Which is why the people in your plan who want to take advantage of the new after-tax to Roth conversions won't be able to :)

I've always done 2 things in resolutions: 1) The company assumiong sponsorship adopts a resolution confirming the change to name it as employer. 2) The Company losing sponsorship does a resolution to transfer sposnsorship over to the other entity. Without this 2nd piece, the other employer is essentially "kidnapping" the Plan. Anyway, that's been my take...

Take a look at the regs under 1.401(a)(4)-11(g) which tells you specifically what to do to correct coverage: (vii) Special rules for section 401(k) plans and section 401(m) plans—(A) Minimum coverage requirements. In the case of a section 401(k) plan, a corrective amendment may only be taken into account for purposes of satisfying §1.410(b)-3(a)(2)(i) under this paragraph (g) for a given plan year to the extent that the corrective amendment grants qualified nonelective contributions within the meaning of §1.401(k)-6 (QNECs) to nonhighly compensated nonexcludable employees who were not eligible employees within the meaning of §1.401(k)-6 for the given plan year, and the amount of the QNECs granted to each nonhighly compensated nonexcludable employee equals the product of the nonhighly compensated nonexcludable employee's plan year compensation and the actual deferral percentage (within the meaning of section 401(k)(3)(B)) for the given plan year for the group of NHCEs who are eligible employees. Similarly, in the case of a section 401(m) plan, a corrective amendment may only be taken into account for purposes of satisfying §1.410(b)-3(a)(2)(i) under this paragraph (g) for a given plan year to the extent that the corrective amendment grants qualified nonelective contributions (QNECs) to nonhighly compensated nonexcludable employees who were not eligible employees within the meaning of §1.401(m)-5 for the given plan year, and the amount of the QNECs granted to each nonhighly compensated nonexcludable employee equals the product of the nonhighly compensated nonexcludable employee's plan year compensation and the actual contribution percentage (within the meaning of section 401(m)(3)) for the given plan year for the group of NHCEs who are eligible employees. For ADP Testing, I just don't see anything at all that says that you cant use the QNECs in the ADP test. And it would be analogous to adding people in for profit sharing but then saying you still have an (a)(4) discrimination problem because I can't treat them as having received any contributions. This does not violate Tom's rule that you have to satisfy (a)(4) with an without QNECs. I'm assuming there is no profit sharing, so the only nonelective contributions are going to NHCEs.

So wait, do we all agree that the FICA is due on 6/30/2022? My vesting date needs to be in June.

Bumping up again with a follow-up... Executive gets $50,000 a year for 5 years, which becomes vested on 6/30/2022. Under the short-term deferral exception, I can have that paid say, 2/28/2023 and that is ok, correct? The distribution is taxed when received, in 2023?

It includes the rollover option. I'll probably end up just editing it to take out the rollover option.

K2retire I thought you solved all my problems - they have a spouse form and a non-spouse form but not an estate form. What a drag. This happens to be a pooled plan. I looked at some of the forms for the providers but not has a form specific to an estate. And therefore it's a challenge to sift there all the excruciating minutiae to find the language that applies...

Why do I continue?? Why?? I did the read the rule. The Participant came to the ROBS promoter seeking to use their rollover funds to start a business. The participant went to their website (presumably) or heard it from a friend who heard it from a friend. But somehow the participant found the ROBS promoter and I already decided to do this. I have a hard time believing ROBS promoters would have much luck cold-calling businesses that don't even exist yet. You say the ROBS promoter is recommending the rollover. What possible basis could have for making that suggestion?

If this was an anonymous post I'd still know who wrote it

In my case we have a TIN - but no one has a "death benefit" form they can share?

If the ROBS promoter is a fiduciary for providing compliance services to the ROBS sponsor, then you would have to agree that I am a fiduciary for facilitating setting up a 401k plan. But I am know that I am not a fiduciary. But now we're going around in circles (probably more than 50% my own fault :)) so I anticipate this being my last post on this topic.

There is no fee for investment advice here. That's my point

Ahhh these are the things I don't want to look up on my own!

Would anyone be willing to share a set of distribution paperwork for an estate, to be completed by the executor of the estate?

I agree that if the security selected, monitored and purchased by the PARTICIPANT makes money, then yes it is an investment. The more I think about it, I don't think the provider is making a recommendation. The client wants to start a business and the client wants to invest his retirement assets in the business through a ROBS. The ROBS person merely helps with the paperwok in a ministerial way. If they were receiving a commission for the amount of the sale, or charging a fee to advise regarding whether or not the investment was sound, or whether or not they should continue to hold it or sell it to another party, then ok maybe. But that is just not their role... They are not providing investment advice. Doesn't there have to be investment advice to be a fiduciary. Come to think of it, why wouldn't I be a fiduciary for designing a 401k plan? How am I any different? I am merely putting together legal documents to allow someone to establish a particular vehicle inside which to make an investment of their own choosing. Same exact thing the ROBS people are doing. My client might even roll an old balance into the Plan because I may have mentioned he might get better pricing. A fiduciary I am not.

So if I recommend to my friend to close his account to any old IRA am I a fiduciary? I am not getting paid in any way shape or form as a direct result of that rollover. Neither is a ROBS developer when the participant acts on their rollover decision. The ROBS developer is getting paid for compliance services - NOT investment services. I just cant understand how someone who is not making ANY investment recommendations could possibly be a fiduciary under these rules. I assume no one here thinks the ROBS design people are recommending the particular security being invested in??

Yes but they are not recommending a particular security in my opinion. The client is independently choosing the security. The ROBS people are recommending a vehicle. I just don't see it.

I don't understand this letter so I hope someone can tell me what I am missing. The new rules regarding amendmending safe harbors expressly allow you to amend for ANYTHING except the 4 expressly prohibited amendments. Why are they asking the IRS to approve certain other amendments when there is nothing prohibiting those amendments? http://www.asppa.org/Portals/2/PDFs/GAC/Comment Letter/final170606_Safe_Harbor_Mid_Year_CL.pdf

Even when the participant is the owner of the business? It makes me worry because they ask "was this a key employee" on the form and we have to provide the explanation of what happened. To me that says success is not a guarantee. The client doesn't mind paying the taxes in the prior year and I want the IRS to read it and say "well that sounds as fair as can be" and move on.

Well, you're coming close to suggesting that because I didn't go to law school I should handle pre-approved prototype documents, which at times requires quite a bit of skill and expertise even if I did not write the document for start to finish (frankly, neither do the attorneys--they almost always start with a template). Believe me I wouldn't touch a ROBS with a 10 foot pole, I'm just not sure it's that much further down the road I drive on every day...