austin3515

This was my question But the lame IRS answer was "to be discussed from the podium." Does anyone recall what was said? It's question 12 on the 2014 ASPPA Q&A. ASPPA's proposed response was basically an argument agains the IRS's interpretation on the matter. Plan A is a calendar year 401(k) Plan that provides the basic safe harbor match. The Plan holds “regular” matching contributions from prior plan years that are subject to a vesting schedule. The Plan is top-heavy and at least one key employee receives total allocations of more than 3% of 415 Compensation. For the 2015 plan year, only deferrals and safe harbor matching contributions are to be made. There are $3,500 forfeitures of regular matching contributions waiting to be used. They cannot be used to reduce the safe harbor match under IRS policy. If the forfeitures are allocated, the plan will fail to be exempt form the top heavy rules, and a top-heavy minimum will be required. The top-heavy minimum (after using the safe harbor match to offset the top-heavy minimum, as is permitted) is about $90,000. The safe harbor match is only $45,000. Is the plan forced to reallocate the $3,500, giving rise to an additional contribution obligation of $90,000?

Insurance premiums, lawn maintenance, snow removal, etc. etc. Report as other expenses?

Small illiquid REIT in a 401k plan. Do I report as a real estate? The investment is definitely not filng a separate 5500 as a DFE so I thgouth I had to look through at the underlying holdings.

Now we're talking! Send me a PM if you would like to me propose!

Once in my life time, I did the one-to-one as a match to avoid the ridiculous outcome of having a host of people with $1 in their account which would inevitably be forfeited anyway. Sometimes reason has to trump strict readings of the rules (at least in my opinion).

Does someone in your office have expertise in these designs? Your getting great advice from people in the know, but this is the kind of thing where the finer details can get you into a lot of trouble. If you want to be doing these designs I would strongly recommend getting at least your QKA from ASPPA. Not trying to be rude, I honestly have the best intentions, which is to not see you get burned.

Let's say an employee is getting a signing bonus for $1,000 if he/she agrees to take a position with Company A. The employee is getting the bonus in their first paycheck, and eligibility is immediate. Assuming the document does not specifically exclude any form of bonus, is there any reason not to treat sign-on bonus as eligible wages for purposes of calculating the 401k payroll deduction? For example, the bonus is not related to services provided. So, similar to severance only the complete opposite. Biazaaro Severance if you're a Seinfeld fan! Personally I think it is clearly eligible but I am trying to explore this fully and hear other opinions.

It's not a client, the question came from a friend. My friend was the person against whom the transgression was committed. It seems to me that if the company put an ad in the paper indicating what an employee's account balance was, that must be in violation of some law. That is not what happened here, but whatever law would prevent that would be what I'm looking for. I did some searching on a fiduciary duty of privacy and/or confidentiality but found nothing.

What protections does a participant have that his or her 401k information (in this case their balance) will be handled with discretion and kept private. I don't want to get into the specifics but suffice it to say I received a question from a participant (not of a client of mine) who is outraged that his information was shared with a third-party without his consent. It was NOT disclosed in the context of services necessary to the administration of the Plan.

I just saw one the other day, and it looked as interesting as a Model T

That;s what I meant, perhaps my "drop a dime" line was misleading. I just meant report them to the DOL.

Drop a dime to the DOL (if you can find a payphone ) notifying them of an orphan plan. End of responsibility. I'm curious though, did they close doors? Are they out of business? Did they go bankrupt; if so there would be a bankruptcy trustee.

What is a show-stopper is if people are not offered the chance to defer from their first paycheck after 10/1. I've seen it happen (despite my admonitions) that the first 401k deposits were not until the middle of November. The point is, the requirement is not that the documents are signed by 10/1, but that there is a 3 month plan year, not just in form but in operation.

That was the crux of the question, but an employer can sponsor more than one plan, they just cannot contribute to more than 1 plan.

I think the EOB is pretty clear that a 0% MP is ok, and it was in the section of "can a plan JUST allow for rollovers."

Anyone have a problem with a SIMPLE Plan sponsor setting up a 0% money purchase plan to allow the owner to do a rollover and take a loan? Yes, the employees can make a rollover contribution as well.

Can you confirm that for a new plan, there is no requirement to look to participant counts on the last day of the plan year as opposed to the first (i.e., similar to top-heavy). I am pretty sure there is not but want to make sure I am in good company...

Which is why they should leave the thinking to the TPA's

Ah, the op tricked me. Asset purchase and controlled group are irreconcilable in your example. The two cannot coexist.

I do not believe so. For example, we researched having a 401k plan covering everyone, and a SEP covering everyone. The only person who met the SEP eligibility was the owner and we found that was acceptable. We were going to make the 401k a 3%SHNEC to cover the THM. We never ended up doing it, but it was a good plan nonetheless. I think you get one 415 limit by the way.

Well, yes, except that the SEP must cover all employees of the controlled group.

Does it rhyme with MIAA-TREF?

ESOPGuy, Philosophy is not a pre-requisite for 401k compliance

There is no such restriction in the document. They have a policy in place to get this requirement waived, which we are going to do. I am totally shocked by this though.

A large record-keeper that most of us know and love has a funny policy. If you are 59.5 and want an in-service distribution of your entire non-loan account, but you have a loan outstanding, then you are not permitted to do so. You are not permitted to a take distribution that will reduce your non-loan account balance below your participant loan balance. Their opinion is that you are violating the collateral requirements. The EOB is perfectly clear on this, the 50% limit is determined on the date of the loan only. The recordkeeper went on to tell me that this rule does not apply to a hardship because the hardship rules require you to take loans first. I explained that this completely negates all logic and reason that might otherwise have supported the position. Esteemed pension gurus, what say you?