austin3515

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.

1 to 2 pages is all anyone can take!

We have a one page questionnaire with questions like: Who are the owners? Do the owners own any other companies? Depending on the answers we get we ask follow up questions. We have a standard one pager asking for documentation like fidelity bonds and payroll reports. And we also have a comprehensive internal checklist that we use to make sure we don't miss anything. Call me disrespectful, but I think it is 100% unacceptable for someone receiving compensation for compliance services to ask who the Highly's are. You have or should have enough information to figure that out on your own. Certain payroll providers who shall remain nameless use 30 page questionnaires with technical definitions, etc., inquiring about controlled groups and key employees, etc. Believe me, I whip that right out when we go up against them on a proposal or if someone wants to leave us for them over fees. Works every time! My guess is that your clients are not reading your 30 page document at all or at least not very carefully. Love the Car Talk reference though I thought it was Dewey Cheetham and Howe, but I guess that was the law firm and not the insurance company....

You're not missing anything. If the union negoatiates no employer contribution because they want more money in their paychecks or because they want a more generous health plan, they are still excludable. that's what the EOB says, and Mike Preston's concise though accurate answer to the last question you asked is in agreement.

In this situation, it was a conversation we were having as I was advising regarding the implications. Thankfully they saw things clearly and are doing the right thing. But I now feel a lot better about what my own responsibilities are in these situations. Thanks everyone!