austin3515

Come to think of it, I actually think it was the 3% SHNEC design (again excluding HCEs), where they were doing the 9% of pay in both plans for the owners. Same logic applies.

Let me be clear - I was not the author. The person who was is probably a name you recognize (not quite a Tom Poje but your closer in terms of notoriety). I was in awe of the pension genius when I heard it.

I have heard of professional firms that set up Plan A for the NHCE managers and Plan B for the NHCE Staff (both SH Match). They then exclude the non-partner HCE's from BOTH plans (I think just for the match, because not top-heavy?), and cover the Owners under BOTH plans. Both plans pass coverage on their own because of all of the excluded HCE's. The partners get the full $10,600 match from BOTH plans (assume they are over 50 and split their 401k down the middle. I couldn't sleep at night with this plan design, but it is pretty cool for demonstrating the points discussed above when taken to the extreme. Obviously I doubt the excluded HCE's are loving their employer, but who knows maybe they are happy with their big fat paychecks and the choice of contributing the max.

How do I get the 1 ASPPA free one and how do I get the IRS ones for people? Thanks you both!

Anyone have any suggestions? We've got a few people "behind" on CPE and need to get some in before 12/31/16.

Outstanding. Spot-on. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-irbs/irb98-02.pdf Q. E–1: When must an employee be given the right to enter into a salary reduction agreement? A. E–1: During the 60-day period immediately preceding January 1 of a calendar year (i.e., November 2 to December 31 of the preceding calendar year), an eligible employee must be given the right to enter into a salary reduction agreement for the calendar year, or to modify a prior agreement (including reducing the amount subject to this agreement to $0). However, for the year in which the employee becomes eligible to make salary reduction contributions, the period during which the employee may enter into a salary reduction agreement or modify a prior agreement is a 60-day period that includes either the date the employee becomes eligible or the day before that date. For example, if an employer establishes a SIMPLE IRA Plan effective as of July 1, 1997, each eligible employee becomes eligible to make salary reduction contributions on that date and the 60-day period must begin no later than July 1 and cannot end before June 30, 1997.

https://www.usps.com/ship/custom-mail-stamps.htm See this link which does indeed point you to Click2mail! THANKS! I was definitely leary of uploading a ton of addresses to a 3rd party but the fact that it's USPS affiliated makes me 100% comfortable.

There's 100 of them out there, where you upload a pdf and an address file and the company will mail out hardcopies of the pdf to everyone on the list. Anyone have any recommendations?

We use FT as well, and we just can't finalize the submission. So of course for the 1099's it's not such a big deal. But I mean c'mon. It's the equivalent of the DOL saying EFAST is going to be down from January to June!

. Please tell me someone has a direct connection to some senior person at the IRS who can explain that this is beyond idiotic. 1099's are all due 1/31st and the very system needed to file said 1099's is out of commission until half way through the only month they can be filed?? Seriously?

"Here's another a better trick" (2) Initial plan year. A newly established plan (other than a successor plan within the meaning of § 1.401(k)-2©(2)(iii)) will not be treated as violating the requirements of this paragraph (e) merely because the plan year is less than 12 months, provided that the plan year is at least 3 months long (or, in the case of a newly established employer that establishes the plan as soon as administratively feasible after the employer comes into existence, a shorter period).

Here is a secret trick, but don't tell anyone: you can have a new plan effective 12/1/2016 with a 6/30/2017 plan year end. This satisfies the "at least 3 month" plan year rule. And a 6/30 plan year might be nice for a CPA firm.

We initially did it to avoid the angry phone calls after the fact saying "what the heck is this fee?" knowing of course that no one will ever read a fee disclosure. But what we are doing now is putting a simple statement - please note fees may apply, and take a look at the fee disclosure.

Are people sending out distribution paperwork to participants with a notation on the paperwork regarding the fees? We've got "a lot" of plans now, and many recordkeepers negotiate the fee separately for each plan, so it's getting overwhelming to be able to do that. What are other people doing?

I know what is going on here. The Plan is unprofitable and they actually hope you will leave.

Well I guess the question becomes very important if the QNEC would trigger a gateway minimum. If testing must be passed with and without, then a GWM would be required. If not taken into account at all then no GWM. No big deal on the cite, I was just curious to see it.

Well I thought of that too. The only participant terminates, so it's a partial termination. But if I was the IRS and someone skips 3 years of RMD's related to a plan design that really never ever ever has a risk of forfeiture, I might call your bluff on that. I should point out too that were only talking about employer contributions made to this plan. We're not talking about skipping RMD's on accumulated rollover balances. So neat idea, but probably only avoiding a few thousand a year of RMD's. I don't think its worth it. Maybe if they were socking away 200K in a DB plan though? Still it seems risky since no one was ever really going to forfeit.

Not if he does not have 5 years of participation.

What if he retires before completing 5 years, and does NOT terminate the plan before hand, and THEN dies? Doesn't he forfeit everything? Isn't 100% vesting on death only for active employees?

Hopefully they will at least come through with their teaser regarding basing the audit on people with balances.

Sure. It's actually the only option you have. And as your post suggests, the 80/120 rule does not apply to a new plan. A new plan with more than 100 people needs to have an audit. I would commence the audit with haste to minimize the delay in supplying the audit. A few months would likely not be noticed. A year might be!

Mike Preston, I believe you 100%! For my own edification can you point me to the site in the new ECPRS?

I would take the position that the plan called for the allocation as of the last day of the plan year and you just didn't go to the step of moving money around within the plan. In my opinion nothing magical happens when you move money from the forfeiture account to the participant account. For example, should a pooled plan be treated as in compliance and a daily val plan treated as disqualified for precisely the same situation? I think not!

"TPA software sounds interesting, but I'm still not sure it can truly track performance of EE vs ER, or actually if that is necessary." It's borderline insulting when someone comes to a message board focus on 401k PLANS and someone comes in and suggests that the distinguished posters who have been posting for years, and/or have been working exclusively in plan administration for years, somehow don't know what we are talking about. So to make a statement like "I don't believe that a commingled account can be adequately segregated between employer and employee" is basically proving the point to the rest of us who are "in the know" that you are in way over your head. And frankly the biggest mistake you are making is to assume we do not know what we are talking about. To be honest, segregating the account between employee and employer is quite simple. you can allocate the gains to each source pro rata on a spreadsheet once a year. There, I've answered your direct question. But that wasn;t our point. Our point is that when the plan is penalized for never executing its PPA restatement, your client will blame you. Or when they take a distribution of their pre-tax account before attaining age 59.5, they are going to blame you for not telling them it was illegal to do so. Or how about if they contribute $18,000 to the Plan by writing a check to the Plan even though there W-2 wage are only $12,000 that year. Again, your fault. How about they take a loan and send you an amortization schedule with annual installments and you don't tell them the loan is a deemed distribution. I can go on and on about all of the things your client will definitely blame on you. But I've bored myself now. To quote ETA Consulting: Good luck!

Can someone point me to some guidance that says if I want to have a plan effective 1/1/2017 I can send out my initial notices after 11/1? I get that for an existing plan I need to have the notice out by 11/1 but it seems to me that if the plan does not yet exist there should be some room. This is what it says under 408(p): The IRS FAQ's don't seem to address what to do in November and December. And I can't find any articles!