austin3515

You need to bring the MEP balances with you. The are taken into account for top-heavy, etc.

CFR 1.410(a)-3 - Minimum age and service conditions. (references age 25 strangely enough?? Apparently the regs have not been updated in a long time?( Example 1. Corporation A is divided into two divisions. In order to work in division 2 an employee must first have been employed in division 1 for 5 years. A plan provision which required division 2 employment for participation will be treated as a service requirement because such a provision has the effect of requiring 5 years of service. HEre is the drivers license one: Plan B requires as a condition of participation that each employee have had a driver's license for 15 years or more. This provision will be treated as an age requirement because such a provision has the effect of requiring an employee to attain a specified age. THANKS!

Ahh this is that "drivers license for 10 years" disguised age requirement - I'm on it!

In order to "prove my point" to my client I'd love to point to something in writing. I can't believe this has not been addressed somewhere by now...

But the groups are operationally defined as follows: People with More than 10 YOS get 10% People with More than 5 YOS get 5% People with Less Than 5 YOS get 0% Please tell me the consensus is that this violates ERISA. Prior TPA said "No, it's ok because everyone is in their own group."

Recordkeeper sent out a 1099-R for a 2015 loan default. It turns out the sponsor made a mistake on loan payments and now we are doing an EPCRS filing to correct. What are the participants options with respect to his 2015 tax return? Can he file it now? Should he include an explanation that an IRS application is pending? I assume the IRS will respond that income from a 1099 is missing, at which point we would resend the same explanation? I assume this would delay any refund for the participant?

I have discussed that with the client (inspired by your original post actually). I think it is sound advice. I hope they take it... As someone mentioned we do get these a lot from those crazy SSA filings and "sorry, you must have closed your account years ago" has been an effective response.

Ahhh, now I see the confusion. I am in the business, and all of our work since I started 10 years ago is scanned on the network. Several years of stuff before that is in boxes. We have often discussed what to do with it and always decided as you said it isn't that burdensome to keep it. Of course I can't say the same for our newer clients with respect to their pre-Austin Powers vendors. I'm not talking about me though. I'm talking about my clients, some of whom for example are in a different profession altogether. They are more focused on meeting payroll this week, or juggling uncooperative vendors, or hiring enough people to fill their orders. Perhaps this year they are tying deal with ACA. I think in general you represent the Fortune 500 type of clients (and we're all very impressed) with robust HR departments and do not take into consideration the "little people" that I represent. And some of them have the great misfortune of establishing a plan decades ago, and changing vendors periodically for the benefit of their participants. That is certainly the unfortunate position in which my current client finds itself.

That's what I was thinking too... The participant could easily say "great idea! let me check!" and then come back and say "see I told you I never got the money, I could not find that 1099-R!"

This guy is not an owner. He is clearly an NHCE at the time of the potential amendment. But there must be something to prevent a sponsor from waiving eligibility for anyone hired on 11/1/2015, if that someone is going to make $150K. Clearly that is discriminatory. It can't be "anything goes."

Client bought assets of another business in November 2015 (unbeknownst to me). Calendar year plan. They chose to recognize service with this entity. Only one employee was affected by this decision and they allowed him to make 401k and receive match in 2015 (and currently), where the eligibilty is 1 YOS/Age 21. His salalry is $135,000 per year. When determining whether or not the amendment to recogize service with this other entity is allowable, I need to make sure the amendment is nondiscriminatory. The same is true both for an amendment effective today and cetainly when doing the retroactive amendment under ECPRS (which must predominantly benefit NHCE's). What are your thoguhts regarding whether or not I can treat this individual as an NHCE versus an HCE? My initial thought about EPCRS is that the "predominantly benfits NHCE's" requirement is meaningless if you dont have to take into account their future status. I suppose the same concern can be true for any amendment that effectively waives eligibility for a new hire.

I speak for "the people" and that is all I will say about that.

"First, the "forever" standard is part of ERISA - maintain records as long as necessary to determine benefits payable - and frankly, it isn't that burdensome" :P :P :P (now that is snarky!)

Sorry, but it just seems like some of the "suggestions" (such as the forever standard, remembering obsure details from decades ago that people would be willing to testify to under oath no less) while they are commendable in a utopian world, are just not practical. I swear if Microsoft got this question they would say to the participant "Are you kidding me??" and promptly hang up on them. I'll tell you what, one of these days I'm going to call the big 5 accounting firm I worked for when I graduated and ask them for my money and see what they say! I took the distribution in 2000... Better yet, I'll wait 10 years and give it a shot...

LEt me be clear. There are no files. There are no memories beyond actually remembering the person. There is no one who will testify. I'm sure the owners would testify that they would not have forfeited the money.

Oh yeah, absolutely MoJo. Will call the participant today and see if they would accept $10,000 just to leave us alone. That would be a terrific precedent to set...

What if someone didn't get that good advice of keep records forever until it was 20 years too late? Also, I can see the rationale for not keeping the records supporting a distribution that took place 20 years ago. Certainly they would be kept forever for people who still have money in the Plan.

I don't think even the best in class companies would be able to satisfy this. It was about $30K, definitely not a force out. I suppose we can just tell him no and see if he sues.

Any suggestions on an employee who walks in with a statement from a pooled account from 1993 and says "I never got my money!" Are there any options? Is it ok to just say "we don't have it."

The loans were repaid though with real money, and they were applied to a real obligation. It is where she got the funds that presents the problem. I'm not suggesting that the courts can't garnish the money, I actually have no idea if they can. I'm merely saying the plan did nothing wrong here and there is no operational failure to correct.

I disagree. The Plan accepted loan payments. I think someone else said this too. The real crime here was the stealing from the Employer. I think the Plan is an innocent bystander.

Most companies have a fidelity bond protecting the employer from theft of the employers assets. Not sure how much she stole or how much the deductible is (or if they even have such a bond). I actually think this has nothing to do with the Plan at all. She stole from the Employer, not the Plan.

Not if payment is contingent upon termination, which it almost always is in these things.

Ok ill give him your number and you can explain it to him... maybe imnoverthinking it but I think he'll be upset and incredulous.

The math was just easier with 100k. Clearly the exec wants not only the tax savings but also the we contribution. I try not to think people unreasonable when they are being reasonable.