austin3515

Can someone give me a good write-up on how to do this? I can't find anything elaborate but I've heard this is agood technique. At the end of the day, is it as simple replacing NRA in a formula with the SSRA? So for example, if someone is 70, testing age is 70, but otherwise, use SSRA?

The Employer's EIN. But again, the account type is on the application, qualified 401k, so there has never been a situation where the employer is getting taxable 1099s. I'm gonna be honest here, I'm not a big Trump fan, but when he starts talking about obnoxious and pointless regulations and burdens on business, this is the kind of thing that is on my list--pointless agony for plan sponsors. Not being able to use forfeitures for SH's was another, and a 25 page fee disclosure to even people with no money is a third (and the most galling). Utterly pointless rules. So if it is a requirement to get an EIN, I will comply; but then I repeat myself. But I also think that whoever that guy is running Treasury (Mnuchen?) will set the tone such that this kind of thing will never make it. On the other hand, although I have no expertise in global warming regulations, I have a feeling I might lean the other way; but then, we're not trying to save the world in our industry. Maybe this has been too political, so don't hold it against me...

Maybe I'm missing something but I have NO EIN's for any of our plans (And there are a lot). Never had an issue. But we use PenChecks to process withholding/1099-R's so perhaps you will agree in that situation the separate EIN is not necessary?

MoJo, are you using their standard volume submitter or did you modify that language? And can you share the rationale supporting the conclusion?

Why is it that we all agree this is a very important question and no one seems to be answering it? I honestly think they intentionally omit the stuff they don't know just so they don't have to admit they don't know.

Very very helpful, thanks! I had heard of all of these things, I guess I'm just surprised to hear that they are all that common. I guess I'm keeping it simple which is a good thing, though I do know enough to call in the experts when needed.

http://www.relius.net/News/TechnicalUpdates.aspx?T=P&1=1&ID=1103 Relius' notice that came out today. Not 100% answering my original question about using forfeitures today for 2016 but certainly implies it will not work.

But do you see where my question is coming from? If a plan puts away $50,000 a year for 5 years, the money vests on the 5th anniversary, and the plan pays out $250,000 plus interest 30 days after it vests, what kind of a plan is that? I would have told you that was a plain vanilla 457f plan. I didn't think there was any other way to run a 457f plan because the monies are taxable as soon as they vest. By the way I know I am missing something simple and basic, so please do talk to me like I don't know anything!

So you treated as ineligible deferrals and forfeited the match? Also, I don't think severance is ineligible for a SIMPLE, is that right? 415 doesn't apply...

This is ridiculous. I am reading that employee deferrals under a 125 plan are supposed to be excluded from the definition of compensation. So Johnny makes $100,000 and his insurance premiums are $5,000 so his eligible comp is just $95,000. Is anyone in the country doing THAT right?? I'm renaming these things to "COMPLEX's" I don't know what it stands for yet...

Someone mentioned the obvious point which is we need to choose a course of action today. The official answer in October is as useless as a $3 bill. I hope Relius comes out with a more reasonable interpretation than FT, or at least says something like " some practioners might take the position that..." which to me is saying (albeit with a wink and a nod) that they think it is strong enough to be reasonable even if they don't want to be responsible for defending it.

Are you kidding, I am just thrilled with what they have done. Hats off to the IRS! But the point here is that an amendment is not required. The document already says that contributions required to be nonforfeitable when made cannot be used. One could easily argue that sentence simply means something different today than it did last week. That would be one argument. The other to me clearly is just that I used the forfeitures in 2017.

OK, I am missing something. The new proposed regs indicate that Short-Term deferrals are not subject to 457f. Short-term deferrals are deferrals that are paid shortly after they become vested. Because 457f's are taxable when they vest, we always payout shortly after they become vested. So what would be a 457f plan? And why don't any of these articles address that question?

hey man, I relied on a good faith interpretation!

Tom, what do you think? Are they being too restrictive?

I'm going to sue them for 1 million dollars!!

Tom you can tell them if they don't want to answer to this guy they better give us the answer we want!

You asked the IRS? That's pretty neat...

Rather be Golfing, is there a dislike button on these boards anywhere? I think its possible that there would be different interpretations personally, but lets see. Leave it to the IRS not to address the most glaring question.

Ahh, but what do you do for a 6/30 year-end? That is the million dollar question!We use Relius and I like the interpretation displayed above (i.e. the refrence to "contributed" has been obsoleted by the new guidance), and for me I think it's enough to get me there for 2016 and any plan year ends between now and when I get my hands on the amendment. Be curious to see if Relius addresses this.

Johnny has comp of $100,000 in 2016. the Plan includes a 3% Safe Harbor Nonelective. Johnny ACCRUES a benefit of $3,000 during 2016. His employer FUNDS the benefit that accrued in 2016 during 2017.

Here is what mine says: I'm using the forfeitures in 2017! I think there is room for interpretation. The language was just not specific to my question, I don't think.,

My question on this is: Let's say you're funding the 2016 Safe HArbor today. Can you use forfeitures today? You have until 12/31/2017 to adopt this kind of a discretionary amendment. But does it apply to when the contribution is funded or when it is accrued? I think that is a critical question that perhaps is not explicitly addressed. And if that is the case I'm using the interpretation that works best for my clients!

Shoot, sorry...

http://asppa-net.org/News/Article/ArticleID/7159/ct/ff7cdf404509366e8151d44bf327737cf11e6cd03bf5cc2d0bd4426984c92294dd479532ae0d60e6b26b456c3499bd05b4f0b98de35331b536c91c7a45121059 We can use the proposed regs immediately, right? But what if we are funding a 2016 Safe Harbor contribution today? Can we use the forfeitures today? I don't see why not.