austin3515

My opinion is why would you ever give up the ADP testing exemption. For what? There are providers out there who are quite good (American Funds RK Direct being one). "There are no HCE's today" is by no means indicative of what the lay of the land will be even in 5 years. OK, I guess if limiting participation to those with a year of service is a critical organization goal (for example if there is extreme turnover) then I guess 401k. But I have sat through to many non-profit takeovers where I had to address TESTING issues! That is just uncalled for with a non-profit.

Maybe it's time to change the Plan Year to a 3/31 :) IF that was the case you could add a safe harbor provision 4/1... That would be item (ii) in the list provided above.

Must the auto increases in a QACA take place on the first day of the Plan Year? The regulations regarding increases are worded that way, but I wonder if it is permissible to allow the increases earlier than the first day of a plan year. We're taking over a plan that added QACA 1/1/2017, with the first increase scheduled for 9/30. As such, the increases will always be a little earlier than is required by the regs.

I guess the point though is that everyone has the same access to the same match formula when taken as a whole. The allocation conditions are the same, and in fact that the discretionary match has a vesting schedule, so the benefit at the high end is arguably of lesser value anyway. Any basis for aggregating and saying, for BRF purposes, everyone gets the same dollar for dollar match? Tom, I assume you agree that a match with no cap is not subject to BRF testing?

Well, I do think a bad precedent was set here. I'll just leave it at that.

My 2 cents, I completely agree that there are scoundrels out there, and getting rid of this would be too bad. So there are multiple losers, so let's say its at least a tie for the unsuspecting participant whose going to be sold a piece of garbage annuity, and the firms that spent millions and millions to comply for nothing.

SH Match is 100% of first 4%. Discretionary match (no ACP SH) is zero on first four and dollar for dollar on the next 96% (i.e. client wants to match dollar for dollar). Assume top-heavy not an issue. Do we need to test the 2nd match for BRF because the rate of match increases as deferrals increase OR can we "aggregate" the match formulas and say that everyone gets the same match formula?

Imagine how quickly people will act the next time sweeping regulatory changes are proposed. I feel bad that a lot of MAJOR corporate decisions were made based on this rule. You had companies simply withdrawing from this industry and selling whole divisions in anticipation. So they're going to be penalized for getting ahead of the curve. https://www.insurancenewsnet.com/innarticle/1154689

I guess that explains this statement in my Basic Plan Document: Very interesting indeed...

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!!