austin3515

Please let me know what options are out there, what you are happy with. FT does not have a 457f option. I am already familiar with Sungard Corbel, looking for others. Thanks in advance!

Solo 401k Business Owner owns 100% of his business and has no employees. He's been maxing out his SEP for years. Now, he acquires the assets of another business and as part of the transaction agrees to sponsor their 401k Plan. I am resigned to the fact that 414a requires that the new owner must recognize all service with the acquired business because it adopted their plan. Based on the wording in 414a that requirement is not limited to just the acquired plan, and also clearly applies to SEPs. So the question is, are there any 410b6c like provisions in a SEP that would allow me to exclude ALL of the acquired employees for a period of time? Assume they used the max 3 year eligibility period.

(a) Service for predecessor employer For purposes of this part— (1) in any case in which the employer maintains a plan of a predecessor employer, service for such predecessor shall be treated as service for the employer, and So they figured out my scheming mind and wanted to make sure that just setting up a new plan would not allow you to circumvent the rules. I thought perhaps the rule to recognize the service was limited to just the plan in question.

Company A buys 100% of the ASSETS of Company B on 10/1/2016. Owner of Company A is the sole employee of Company A and has 10 years of service. Company A assumed sponsorship of Company B's 401k Plan. But now the Owner of Company A wants to maximize his contributions for 2016 and 2017 without giving a contribution to the acquired employees. Can he establish a new Money Purchase Plan with a year of service so he is the only eligible employee for 2016 and 2017, and then freeze the Plan 1/1/18 when the other employees would be eligible. Perhaps terminate "a few years" after that to satisfy permanency. Look forward to hearing thoughts.

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!