austin3515

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.

It looks like when doing 1099's I would include code L, but ONLY code 1 if the participant is under 59.5? If they are over 59.5, it is just code L? Agreed? This person is active so no offset.

Now that is hysterical. Same plan...

No, it definitely hurts. That's why I added it to my example. If HCEs were not excluded from SHNEC, there wouldn't even be a question, it would clearly fail 414s.

" I agree with what you are saying when the plan still allows repayment up to the end of a cure period. " Don't they all allow some form of cure period? I mean I have never seen a loan program say they moment you term, it's all over. There is always some opportunity to repay

Well, let's say the "reasonable" definition is that bonuses are excluded. Now, all the HCE's are over $265K even without their bonuses. What say you to that plan design?

Timing of deemed distribution Amount of deemed distribution. These terms for me raise questions about whether or not it would apply differently in the case where a distributable event exists. The above terms are for "deemed" distributions, and when there is a distributable event, they are treated as "actual" distributions. Thoughts? Your point would need to be that the loan is deemed distributed first, and then offset 2nd.

Is a Safe Harbor plan deemed to satisfy 414s if the HCE's are excluded from the 3% SHNEC? Logic tells me no, as you could just exclude HCE's from the SHNEC and then exclude everything but thought I would check!

Hjonestly, I would have them pay the amortizartion schedule balance as of the date of term :) But that's me being a cowboy. Anyway, if anyone has the "clutch" interpretation of the regs that puts this to bed that would be SWEET!!

100% agree. I would definitely not. But a question came up recently and as with many things I am surprised I cn't find a clear answer anywhere. The regs seem to be pretty clear though that TAXABLE interest accrues through the end of the grace period. I was just hoping someone could point to something that clarifies one way or the other...

option b) includes reference to the grace period. So assume the grace period ends on 6/30/2017.

Johnny has a $5,000 loan s of 1/12/2017. He terminates employment as of that date. His 1099-R is: a) $5,000 b) $5,000 plus any interest that accrues between 1/12/17 and the end of the "grace period" I realize that for loans that default when there is no distributable event the interest is accrued through the end of the grace period. Is the same thing true for terminations (i.e., when there is a distributable event)?

Have a plan that did not auto enroll a few employees going back 3 years. Am I crazy or is EPCRS silent on how to determine ADP in the case where the plan is tested separately for otherwise excludables? Do I run one single test? I guess that is the answer, but I can't find anything. Even the EOB seems to ignore this obviouis question...

Can anyone point me to a good article? I have a client who wants more information.

I still don't like it. Let's talk about severance. The argument of "they would have received the pay had their employment continued" has been made many times even about severance. "If my employment had continued, I would have been paid for those 10 weeks!" I know we have all heard that argument from people and "batted" it down and said no no no, the comp was never earned. I am sorry I just do not see any material difference between 2 weeks notice refused but with payment provided, versus 2 weeks of severance with an involuntary termination. They are both essentially involuntary terminations with salary continuation. I guess I'm going to stop posting about this now though...

Well, isn;t the question "can you use it in the first place"? If it is "severance" it is not legal to use it. I would be curious to see what the language you are referring to actually says.

She used to work their full-time so is legitimately eligible.