austin3515

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?

Well that is pretty clear I would have to agree... Worth noting that NO 403b contributions (er or ee) can be used in any qualified plan (1.410(b)-7(f)). A subtlety that might trip the unwary. This is interesting though - as I was reading your site (1.403(b)-5)I came across this in paragraph (b): "Further, the employee's right to make elective deferrals also includes the right to designate section 403(b) elective deferrals as designated Roth contributions. " Based on a literal reading, 403(b)'s are required to offer Roth, are they not?

Dug this one up from the archives... It's a little dusty, but I have the same question today. Any new developments here? I did receive an opinion from a very very top-tier ERISA attorney who concluded 403b deferrals were out but it took him 2 pages to explain why, because of course the regs are not explicit one way or the other.

It does I guess except that it doesn't reference a match in Appendix B. Anyway, I am continuing my policy of depositing as whatever match it was supposed to be.

From EPCRS: The question is, this is not a QNEC (they would have said QNEC if it was required). But it says "Employer nonelective contribution." That seems problematic because perhaps the plan does not even have a profit sharing provision. Perhaps there is a profit sharing provision, but the vesting schedule is 2/20 on that source, while the match is 100% vested. Have these questions ever been addressed?

Missed deferral opportunity QNEC is made for a participant whose deferral election was not implemented. Can the QNEC be included in the ADP Test in the year of correction?

Amen. Practically speaking: 1) watch out for terminated employees with large balances. They are in your 12/31/15 test but not 12/31/16 - i.e., you can see with clarity sometimes that the 2017 year is going to be top-heavy (I wont even charge for that tip!). 2) If plans are "almost top-heavy" ( a relative term that depends on a lot of thing) tell keys not to defer until you've done the top-heavy test. Make a big deal about it, get them on the phone, etc. This is a life sentence in terms of punishments at times and it does not fit the crime. Be vigilant!! But to your point about the officer (or perhaps 1% owner) who crept over the earnings threshold, I agree not much that can be done there. Thankfully it's never happened to me but I can see where that is nasty trapped hidden in a most clandestine manner...

Isn't that the point of different plan #'s?

Legort, no one said it was fair! This is the DUMBEST rule on the books as it is exclusively targetted to small employers, or worse, family run businesses. IT ain't fair, but it's there. Hey, I'm a poet and I didn't even realize!

So we just picked up a new plan and the prior consultants were aggregating a 403b plan and a 401k plan for the ACP test. All of the HCE's are in the 403b (and their match goes there too) and all of the NHCE's are in the 401k. So no ADP test, but we do have an ACP test. The problem is, the 403b is calendar and the 401k has a fiscal year-end. Any suggestions? The match is identical in both plans (small payroll to payroll calculations). Is this something the IRS would entertain allowing a fix for under VCP?

1065 was filed without deducting anything for profit sharing last week. Can an amended be filed "today" (before 9/15) to take an additional deduction? Or has the ship sailed?

Well, I would be surprised that if this was an option I have never seen a pre-approved document include an option to set the Employer as the Trustee in the way they do for the Plan Administrator.

It seems to me if the corp is the trustee, then by the transitive property the owners are trustees. I get that it is less paperwork, but I do not see it reducing anyone's personal liability.