austin3515

How do you do the withholding? We had a few holdouts who did not want to go to PenChecks until they mandated EFTPS for the withholding. At that point we told them PenChecks was the only option.

Consider using PenChecks... They handle all the reporting and it eliminates the need for a separate EIN. When it becomes mandatory to report the Trust EIN I Plan on reporting the employer's EIN. I have 1,100 plans under my employer and NONE has a separate EIN.

1.401(k)-1(e)(8) (8) Section 415 compensation required. With respect to compensation that is paid (or would have been paid but for a cash or deferred election) in plan years beginning on or after July 1, 2007, a cash or deferred arrangement satisfies this paragraph (e) only if cash or deferred elections can only be made with respect to amounts that are compensation within the meaning of section 415©(3) and § 1.415©-2. Thus, for example, the arrangement is not a qualified cash or deferred arrangement if an eligible employee who is not in qualified military service (as that term is defined in section 414(u)) and who is not permanently and totally disabled (as defined in section 22(e)(3)) can make a cash or deferred election with respect to an amount paid after severance from employment, unless the amount is paid by the later of 21/2 months after severance from employment or the end of the year that includes the date of severance from employment and is described in § 1.415©-2(e)(3)(ii) or (iii). But then again, this does leave the door open for recognizing otherwise non415 compensation for profit sharing as long as I can pass testing on a 414s/415 compliant definition.

The final 415 regs go on ad nauseum about how post severance comp cannot be included for 415 comp definition. I'm looking for the connection that it can't be used for benefit accruals, such as 401k deductions? I know that it cannot, but where does it say there is a connection between the two? So what is to stop me from making post-severance comp eligible for allocations, and then using a 415/414s compliant definition for nondiscrimination testing? I know there is something, but again, what is that something?

aka I am correct that even if we amended the plan today, and someone terminated in 2025, the first installment could not be paid until 2030?

Is it possible for a deferred comp plan to change from a lump-sum payment following termination to 5 annual installments? The current document indicates that participants are paid 100% of their balance 90 days following termination of employment. There are payment elections permitted of any kind. We want the executives to be paid in 5 annual installments to help ensure that they will be in a lower tax bracket when they receive the payments, as the participants are generally expected to remain until retirement anyway. It seems as though to allow this we are required to defer the first annual installment until 5 years AFTER their termination date. Is that accurate?

Strange I don't have that email.

P.S. Thank you for finding those!

One thing I note is that my piece of Sungard is barely a blip on the radar screen. Hard to see how plan documents fits in with this new company, although I guess the same was true of Sungard beforehand. I still think they should have sent us a reassuring email. People want to know in these situations whether it affects them. That's what I want to know. Is anyone else curious?

Apparently Sungard was acquired in August by a company called "FIS." Have they made any press releases or sent any emails reassuring us that nothing is going to change? For example, what if new management decides to phase out Relius/server environment in favor of its on-line ASP platform? I'm not worried, but I sure would like something in writing telling me I have nothing to worry about. Depending on what you all have to share, I will obviously ask them too. I honestly did not even know about this deal until I logged in to Relius Documents today and saw the new logo.

It seems clear that an in a pooled account they are going way beyond the "safe harbor" role described in the Q&A don't you think?

Unbelievable. So I have RIA clients who have pooled accounts. They are all subject to these onerous requirements? I suppose I should suggest a corporate trustee?

It sounds like there are two possibilities. Changing a calendar year plan to a 6/30 plan during the calendar year. In that scenario, 1/1 to 6/30 is the short plan year, and 7/1 to 6/30 is the next plan year. The other option is to amend the Plan year before the beginning of the plan year to a 6/30 year end. That way, the upcoming plan year is less than 12 months. In that scenario, the Plan would need to be safe harbor not just for the next 6 months, but the next 12 months.

Based on your reading, the following plan year would ALWAYS be a short plan year. Why would the possibility of a short plan year only be noted parenthetically if it was the mandatory outcome? I don;t disagree with you, and in the right situation (i.e., a big plan) I would probably get an ERISA attorney to bless it. But the regs in my opinion clearly do not prohibit it. They had their chance to tie our hands when they wrote the regulation. They left the door open. Whether intentional or not, it is open. They wrote down in plain in English what was required, and no requirement to maintain the same formula was mentioned.

It could be, except that the regulations specifically permit it. Therefore this type of amendment would be totally uncontroversial.

http://www.fringefunding.com/img/~www.fringefunding.com/hrnewsletter.generic.11.05.12.pdf This McCay Hochman article says you could have terminated one of the plans, but if the deal has closed it is too late to terminate., https://www.mhco.com/BreakingNews/SH_12Month_102413.html One idea might be to change the Plan Year ends to say 3/31, have a short plan year, then merge effective 4/1. I "think" the only requirement for this is that the plan be a safe harbor for the next 12 months. Yes, I think this will work. Here is the reg on changing plan years. Note that QACA's are covered by this same reg and that the reg does not specific you must use the same contribution formula., 1.401(k)-3(e)(3): (3) Change of plan year. A plan that has a short plan year as a result of changing its plan year will not fail to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (e)(1) of this section merely because the plan year has less than 12 months, provided that— (i) The plan satisfied the requirements of this section for the immediately preceding plan year; and (ii) The plan satisfies the requirements of this section (determined without regard to paragraph (g) of this section) for the immediately following plan year (or for the immediately following 12 months if the immediately following plan year is less than 12 months).

Well, I think that might be the nicest professional compliment I have ever received!

There is some rule affecting RIA's which was in response to Bernie Madoff that increased an RIA's responsibility when they have "custody" of client assets. I understand the point of the rules with respect to RIA's who have access to their client's money. I have a client who is an RIA who is suggesting that they are subject to these rules with respect to the Trustee of the plan covering the RIA's employees. I tried to explain that in this situation, invoking this rule would involve protecting the Trustee (who happens to be the sole owner) from himself. The requirements that one must deal with in this situation are quite onerous - either appointing a corporate trustee or engaging an audit firm to conduct "surprise audits." Can someone point to something where it has been documented that this does NOT apply to RIA firms where the owners of the firm serve as Trustees?

Hey, I said it first!

You've got yourself a big problem then. You're amendment benefitted a discriminatory group. The correction is to amend to bring in enough people to correct the violation, and I believe make a QNEC for each of them equal to the ADP for the NHCE's, or something like that. To My 2 Cents original question - you would presumably be in a little hot-water if you did not ask the right question here. I'm not being critical, I assume you asked what I would have asked, which is "is this employee expected to earn more than $115,000 a year" and they said "no" and you said fine. I would like to THINK I would have asked enough questions to ferret out the truth, but I would prefer not to speculate. As to the "outright lie" accusation, I would categorize as it as gross case of omitting the whole truth for them not to say "we want to do it because it's the owner's wife." But then clients tend to exercise their pointer fingers whenever corrections involve writing checks....

That argument works better when the governemtn actually said-so. But here they have not. They have merely "suggested" it without providing any reasoning behind the basis for the suggestion.

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/forum15_sep_simple_avoiding_pitfalls.pdf Mfishbein, take a look at this from the IRS website. See page 6 where it says (regarding self employed deferrals):

Amen. 2 minutes to get the SSA, maybe... Explaining to the client why it is needed, tracking this new EIN, blah blah blah...

From a practical perspective: Corporate EIN, with the accoutn properly registered to "John Doe, Trustee, FBO ABC 401(k) Plan." I know the IRS is starting to get their you know what's all in a bunch about separate EIN's, but the reality is, at least in the small market, separat EIN's do not exist. That was done away with with the advent of daily val plans where the custodian handles all the withholdign remittances and 1099 reporting. There is simply no need for a separate EIN. I have NEVER had separate EIN's for ANY plans, and in dozens of audits over the last 10 or 15 years that has NEVER been an issue. That;s all the proof I need, even if I am willing to stipulate that you all know more than me

Same sex couple. We all agree, they are a spouse for everything now, attribution, HCE definition, etc etc. Correct?