austin3515

Any response?

Forget about 5500's, there's probably a "few more" 1040's that are hanging in limbo...

I'm surprised there is no relief yet or did I miss something?

Here is an example too. John takes out a $50,000 loan on January 15th 2016 and repays it in full on March 15th of that same year. John cannot take ANY loans until January 15, 2017. Sounds ridiculous but absent these rules, John could take out $50,000 and repay it every 12 months and continue to roll the loan and never actually repay it. The point of these rules is to avoid John essentially never repaying the loan.

You did not mention how long ago you were divorced, but it sounds like it was long ago. All I can think of is subpoenaing his tax records from the IRS so you can see if he received any distributions. But you need an attorney for that, but perhaps they will work on a contingency basis.

I'm a straight-up independent, no political loyalties one way or the other. It's just too damn bad I cant vote republican this cycle because for me this would have been a decisive factor! :wacko:

FWIW, I am absolutely telling my clients to file. Fortunately they are both in a position to pay me the $500 or so that I would need to charge to do the filing. It's an atrocity though that the fees involved here are thousands of times the correction involved (i.e. the interest)

WCC, were the amounts similar to what I have described?

I'll give em $30,000, but these amounts are way too small!! Must be a mistake!

There is no filing fee for the VFCP.

I've gotten two letters in two days from the Boston Office regarding late deposits reported on the 5500. The letter specifically says "it appears that the correction was not completed before the date of the filing of this form." That is false in both cases - the auditors schedule of late deposits disclosed that it was corrected outside of VFCP. The letter indicates that "prior to commencing any enforcement actions, please let us know if you will be filing under VFCP." By the way, did I mention that both plans have around $1MM of contributions a year and the late deposits disclosed were WELL below $1,000? One was just barely over $100. Anyone getting similar letters? I think that when they pulled the query something went wrong and these were sent out in error.

Belgarath, we do that all the time when there is lousy employee participation. In fact sometimes we just show it as an optional contribution when we send them the SH Match calc.

Do you think my last post is a valid defense? I could have stuck it to the employees under SCP hard-core.

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.