austin3515

Note too that I could self correct this under SCP by refunding 100% of the ineligible contributions to all of these hardworking NHCE's which my client would be inclined to do since the VCP fee is $5,000 (not counting legal fees). How about that for an argument?

Well, I weigh the level of risk involved with the hefty VCP fee (not to mention professional fees) and say to myself, "Self, this is really the same thing."

How do people feel about using EPCRS SCP to retroactively add a participating employer if the related employees were allowed to participate? The entity was small relative to the existing employer and all were NHCE's. The SCP for this appears tor reference situations where employees were allowed to participate before completing the initial eligibility age/service requirements. It just seems like this issue is so materially similar that it would pass muster.

© Paid during "determination period." Compensation shall include only that Compensation which is actually paid to the Participant during the "determination period." Except as otherwise provided in this Plan, the "determination period" is the period elected by the Employer in the Adoption Agreement. If the Employer makes no election, the "determination period" shall be the Plan Year. Plain as the chin on my face, there it was all along... This is the Corbel VS and it was included in the definition of compensation in the BPD.

I have always told people someone is eligible for the plan with respect to the first pay-DATE on or after plan entry date. I'm thinking their must be an article or something on point clarifying that when compensation is earned is not relevant, it is when it is received that matters. Any help appreciated cuz it comes up all the time...

Again, my position is that the fiduciary IS choosing anyway, because they are choosing between Roth and Pre-Tax. You're assuming that if they "just use pre-tax" that they did not make a choice, but they did.

I have a great answer. Because it is a key factor, and it is objective and readily determinable by the plan administrator. Heck I'd say throw age in their too except then you get really really complicated.

If a plan offers Roth and Pre-Tax aren't you making similar presumptions when you choose one over the other? Taking into account ONE determinative variables as opposed to NONE can only ensure that more people end up in the right place. And because I just don't see a nondiscrimination issue with the assumption I can't imagine why it wouldn't be allowed, subject only to any restrictions in the pre-approved plans.

I get this design, I don't think it's whack at all. Complicated, off the beaten path, yes indeed. But I certainly appreciate the desired outcome. Try this though. Default everyone to Roth. The lower paid people are less likely to make an election (at least that's my assumption) so the default should be what is best for them,. The higher paid people will fill out a form electing pre-tax if they want to. That's the position I took anyway when I default enrolled a plan in Roth. Their rank and file people are young and low paid. So Roth defaulting was a home-run.

The more I thought about this I came up with this scenario. Let's say the kids were the beneficiaries on the 401k plan. The participant sets up the IRA and affirmatively notes his wife as the beneficiary. Then, he signs the distribution AND submits it for processing. And then he dies before it was processed. To me, it would be a sin to deny him his wishes which he not only expressed but went so far as to EXECUTE those wishes. I just cannot fathom a scenario where those wishes would be denied.

Participant retires Monday. Submits distribution form to roll over to an IRA on that same Monday. The form is faxed over to the provider let's say on Wednesday. He dies on Friday (poor guy...) and the rollover is processed by the recordkeeper on the following Tuesday or Wednesday, after he was already deceased. The good news is that the beneficiary in the Plan and the IRA beneficiary are one and the same. But has anyone ever had this before? Is the rollover invalid because he was deceased at the time of processing? Thank goodness the beneficiaries are the same, but assume for the sake of discussion that they are not.

From the regs under 1.415©-1 (B) Date of employer contributions. For purposes of this paragraph (b), employer contributions are not treated as credited to a participant's account for a particular limitation year unless the contributions are actually made to the plan no later than 30 days after the end of the period described in section 404(a)(6) applicable to the taxable year with or within which the particular limitation year ends. If, however, contributions are made by an employer exempt from Federal income tax (including a governmental employer), the contributions must be made to the plan no later than the 15th day of the tenth calendar month following the end of the calendar year or fiscal year (as applicable, depending on the basis on which the employer keeps its books) with or within which the particular limitation year ends. If contributions are made to a plan after the end of the period during which contributions can be made and treated as credited to a participant's account for a particular limitation year, allocations attributable to those contributions are treated as credited to the participant's account for the limitation year during which those contributions are made.

Bird you are overlooking something obvious. Fidelity is the biggest by far. So what that means is, it is their inalienable right to be difficult, perform bad service, and pretend to be compliance specialists but routinely blame the client for compliance mishaps that they never even caught on their own (the auditor did). And of course a 3 month lead time for amendments is definitely worth all the wait since it is Fidelity doing it! Elapsed time for vesting? Why not! So what if it's a bad plan design for their client, it's easier for Fidelity! Want to include taxable fringe benefits because it benefits the owner? That's just too bad BUT you do get to work with Fidelity! So please, cut them some slack!

Is it good advice for the CEO (and perhaps the organization) to avoid naming the CEO as the Trustee? I am suggesting this to a client based on the logic that hey, if you're named, it's not even up for discussion. It is YOUR fault and yours alone. On the other hand if there was a directed corporate trustee, now there will be inevitable finger-pointing and a burden of proof to try and figure out who was a fiduciary. I know people are going to respond and say the "CEO will always be a fiduciary, have good intnernal policies" and blah blah blah. But that's not really what I'm wondering. What I'm wondering is, am I right that the benefits to the individual merely by not being named a trustee meaningful from a personal liability perspective. [again, not asking about fiduciary insurance, etc].

I'm sorry for your loss. Ask Fidelity for the Summary Plan Description. The SPD should tell you who the default beneficiaries are. It is almost always in this order: 1) the spouse (if married), 2) the kids (split up evenly) if any, and 3) the estate. Of course check the SPD, but I've never seen aunts/uncles/siblings come into the analysis. It is really your mother's former employer that is required to pay the money to the right person. So you should be an informed consumer, but it's not your responsibility to figure this out. Call the HR department. The actual date of divorce should be moot assuming the death certificate indicates the marital status as divorced. See if supplying a few years of old tax returns indicating "single" will keep them quiet.

1) What is a normal turn around time to get a response? I have on outstanding for a year. 2) Is there any phone number I can call to check on the status?

Hoping someone knows where I got that joke from...

That;s funny I always though it was a "moo point" - kind of like a cow's opinion

strange... Thanks though!

Is anyone else's mouse scroll wheel not working on the site? It seems to be just this website not working for me?

FWIW I often wonder which spelling applies. :D

Unless Moses works for the IRS I'd say they can't get water out of a stone....

333,333 of payroll is a very small business? That's 6 employees making $60,000...

Top-heavy rules are idiotic and draconian. There is no defending these rules. It is NOT the price of admission for a qualified plan. Nondiscrimination covers that. This is a penalty for being in business too long and employing too many relatives. And if you don't see it that way, then you're probably out of touch with small employers. I can see how those who work with large wealthy companies might not appreciate what a $10,000 top-heavy minimum can do to a small business owner making $110,000 a year, who's just trying to save for retirement by putting away a few thousand dollars a year. Oh and by the way, giving his employees the opportunity to do the same.

Client has a regular health insurance program, more than 100 lives covered. Let's say its BC/BS, fully insured, no trust fund, etc. Monthly premiums paid by Employer and that's that. Do they need to distribute an SAR or is there some sort of an exemption?