austin3515

I couldn't charge enough money to reconcile deposits every month... The history did NOT transfer over. These were regular plain vanilla conversions.

The Plans all transitioned over. The big issue is going to be transaction history. We wont know what transaction histories we need until we do the deposit recons and figure out whose deposits do not reconcile. So all the TPA's out there need access for the foreseeable future, to say nothing of the auditors (I know an audited plan never should have been there but we had a couple, I'm sure there are dozens). There was a lot of stuff we pulled from the website for the auditors...

Do you have plans with ExpertPlan? The website is going dark 1/8th. We're raising a big stink and emailing everyone we know at Ascensus. You should do the same if you have a decent book over there. Download all of your reports now. I don't know what you're going to be able to do get transaction histories if you're researching deposit differences. One of the worst decisions Ascensus has made, and there is a lot to choose from.

Classic IRS. They knew what the big question was but avoided it by using a fixed dollar amount election.

Attorneys. Love 'em and hate 'em. Mostly love of course, but sometimes...

I guess my point is it is semantics. 1% of pay = $24,000, or $2,000 a month. So if instead of electing 1% of pay, the participant instead made the exact same election, by requesting $2,000 a month the plan avoids disqualification?? How is it possible that on the one hand an election disqualifies the plan, while the exact same election worded differently does not? How is that not proof in and of itself? 2 + 3 = 5, 3 + 2 = 5. $2,400,000 x 1% = $24,000 / 12 = $2,000 per month. These are all different ways of saying the SAME THING. This is proof.

With respect to the auto enrollment failuires in this procedure, it says you "may use" the default investment fund. Can you still use the DOL's lost interest calculator? I'm just envisioning a correction involving 15 people where you have to look up their fund based on their DOB and get all the invidiualized returns for each date range, for a fund whose performance might not be publicly available on yahoo because it's an insurance company wrap. This sounds like a horrible nightmare... From 2015-28 (emphasis added by me): (2) Calculation of Earnings for certain failures to implement automatic contribution features. This revenue procedure provides an alternative safe harbor method for calculating Earnings for Employee Elective Deferral Failures under § 401(k) plans or § 403(b) Plans that have automatic contribution features and that are corrected in accordance with the procedures in section 3.02(1) or 3.03 of this revenue procedure. If an affected eligible employee has not affirmatively designated an investment alternative, missed Earnings may be calculated based on the plan’s default investment alternative, provided that, with respect to a correction made in accordance with the procedures in section 3.02(1) of this revenue procedure, any cumulative losses reflected in the Earnings calculation will not result in a reduction in the required corrective contributions relating to any matching contributions.

Edited: so an owner less than age 50 can defer MORE Than 7%, but Mr. just barely an HCE due to comp but catch up eligible would be limited? Correct. Problem, right? In my scenario, the owner of course is over 50 but in theory what you said is possible. But anyway, doesn't the cited reg make it definitely a problem? Do you see wiggle room?

We did not want to limit the 45 year old HCE to 7% - only the ones over 50. The thought process being that the those over 50 can contribute more than 7% so everyone gets to save a lot and it tests better. Tom, I just want to confirm that you agree that what I suggested will not work? I agree if I wanted to limit all HCE's across the board to 5% that would not be an issue, because it is not a separate limit applicable to people eligible for catch-ups.

Thanks!

This is what you are referring to, this blows it for me, correct?

Can I have a deferral limit = 5% of Compensation PLUS catch-up contributions for anyone eligible for catch-ups, but then have no limit for anyone else? Or would that be age discrimination?

Let's face it we all practice law every day whether we care to admit it or not. I research regs, provide advice, craft amendments, assist in EPCRS corrections. Heck, my job description is essentially to practice law. We don't call it that, we call it being a TPA, but there's not much difference aside from the fact that we are paid for a "project" and not an hourly basis. OK I did not go to law school. And by the way, I have my favorite ERISA attorney on speed dial and I call him for help more frequently than he probably would like (he's made plenty of money solving my client's problems!). But to say that a TPA can't "practice law" is to deny the entire system of thousands of people who can efficiently assist plan sponsors in administering their plans. You call it practicing law, I call it helping my clients comply with rules regulations. Probably no difference aside from semantics.

The auditor is ignorant. If someone makes 2,400,000 a year and elects to defer 1% of pay that is NOT a problem. It just isn't. It's that simple. The amount you are contributing is NOT based on compensation. Employee's are permitted to contribute $24,000 (if they are 50). How they get their is an administrative/operational issue. Can I close this topic?

Our document specifically says changes to Employer Information does NOT require a plan amendment.

Well wouldn't you know, that's my precise scenario...

So are we all in agreement that prohibiting a restatement of a safe harbor plan effective 4/1/2016 (for example) in which NO changes are being made to anything that matters (eligibility, vesting, distribution options, contributions, definition of compensation, etc etc) would be ridiculous? Was there nothing out of an ASPPA Q&A that supported this? Relius had a newsletter in 5/2015 in which they dramatically advised not to do it, but said if you had no option, just don't make any other changes. My oh my how the IRS has destroyed safe harbor plans through these idiotic policies.

For us common folk the statement "Prime is 3.5" is more than sufficient to keep me out of trouble!

Has anyone in the last 6 years heard prime + 1 defined as anything but 4.25? I certainly have not.

Prime as announced by the federal government? http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/current/

Does everyone agree that Prime + 1 for participant loans is officially 4.5% (3.5 + 1)? I'm just surprised I haven't seen articles or email blasts on this topic yet.

By any chance does anyone have a table created by an actuary that extrapolates those factors out? I guess I could ask an actuary that we work with but thought I'd check!

THANKS!! OK so I guess the good news is I had the complete table... But what do I do if, because of a 65/5 rule for NRA, someone's NRA is 71 or above. That;s the problem I was tyring to solve...

Does anyone know where I can get the permitted disparity factors for a DB Plan? I'm looking for the grid that adjusts the factors based on the juncture of NRA and SSRA. So 65/65 = .75 and then everything else is adjusted upwards and downwards.

I don't see why that would be an issue? If they leave before meeting the service requirement they still forfeit? Does there also have to be a risk of losing all of your money if they go bankrupt?