austin3515

It's funny, I submitted 2 questions but I lost track of the ASPPA Q&A with the IRS that those questions related to. Did anyone ever see the Q&A? Would you be willing to post it here? I submitted this and a really wild one about a SH Match Plan with an insane top-heavy minimum b/c the document forced forfeitures to be reallocated as PS.

Let me break it down for you. If you are aggregating the 3 Non-SH Plans for the nondscrim classification portion of the Avg Ben Test (treating the SH Plan participants as not benefitting), then you are required to test those 3 Non-SH Plans together for ADP/ACP which I gather is what you want to do. Assuming you are passing the Avg Benefits test (which means the SH Plan can also pass the nondiscrim. classification portion of the Avg Ben Test treating the other 3 plans's participants as not benefitting) then you should be all set.

Here's a doozy for you... Calendar year plan. Fiscal year of employer ends 9/30/2015. 12/31/14 contributions are deducted on the 9/30/15 return. They are amending the fiscal year to 12/31 and there will be a short fiscal year from 10/1/2015 to 12/31/2015. How do I determine the max deductibe for that short fiscal year? The owners will have more than 66,250 of comp in Q4 ($265,000 x 3/12). But I have 12 months of allocations to allocate out. Do they just get hosed on the 2015 plan year? Or is there a way to use the calendar year for the max deductible, especially since otherwise the comp for those 9 months will never get to be used?

I am seriously debating not telling my clients they have an extra month for their 5500... I take 2 vacations a year, one after 7/31 and one after 10/15. To be out a few days after 11/15 seems silly due to Thanksgiving, and there's SH notices, and fee disclosures, and 9/30 ADP Tests...

Fair enough... But in my experience the vast majority do it as a cost-savings measure. If they didn't care about using the forfeitures they would vest the money outright (and some do). I have 2 clients (out of many) who actually reallocate forfeitures to the remaining participants. Having changed jobs twice and forfeiting non-vested portions I have always been of the opinion that vesting does little to increase length of service. IF a better opportunity comes around, people are inclined to take it based on the penny-wise pound foolish doctrine. For example, I have no regrets about the decisions I made, having left for raises, etc. each time.

It does not reduce out of pocket costs for the plan sponsor. Do we not all agree that this is the point of a vesting schedule at the end of the day? To reduce costs for the employer?

It could, but we are trying to benefit our clients, not their employees. But in our client's defense, they already providing a very generous benefit via the Safe Harbor Contribution.

I actually don't think it is an IRS violation to require 2,000 hours of service each year to receive an allocation of the match, I think it is just the DOL. (mind you, requiring 2000 hours for initial eligibility would violate 410a) A good analogy to my observation I suppose would be to also indicate that if you cheated on your taxes it would be the IRS who you should watch out for and not the DOL. You should not cheat on your taxes, nor should you require 2,000 hours each year to receive the match. Pointless observation...

It's part of EPCRS See page 116, there is even an example that references correction under SCP. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rp-13-12.pdf

I thought it was a nice apology and I had accepted it but now I am not so sure... I didn't think the apology confirmed the question I had though.

But we are all in agreement that I can do the amendment under SCP and not submit for a determination letter, correct?

Wait a minute, that's the EPCRS form. I see now... I want to correct under SCP. I don't want to do a filing at all.

Honest to goodness.

What is an 8950?

I was, and thank you!!

Like that answer a lot... But where pray tell do you put that note?

We are having them pay our next 4 quarters fees. $3,000 would be almost 2 years of fees. I do try to sleep at night...

It is not. But regardless, we do have the ACP Safe Harbor Match. Hopefully everyone knows that, but I'm sure some bundled plans with ____ will not have been so smart

That dreaded day has arrived. SH MAtch Plan with $5,000 of forfeitures and just $2,000 of expenses (for my services). That's $3,000 down the drain. No choice but to allocate as additional match... Fabulous. My client will be thrilled. Any word on whether or not the IRS will get their head out of their ___ and fix this idiocy? This client is already plunking in about $100K in match!! Why stick it to them??

Employee was allowed to participate from day 1, when plan has a 1 YOS requirement. Only one ee (a Non-Highly) was affected. ECPRS Appendix B, Section 2.07 contains the rules for retroactively amending the plan to conform to the operations. In the examples, they indicate that the amendment was submitted for a determination letter. I don't think today I am even permitted to submit my pre-approved document (or an amendment thereto) for a determination letter. So can I do the amendment without submitting for a DL?

You'll have to ask Corbel I have no choice but to trust them!

Our doc has the Special Trustee sign the following:

Stale dated checks got returned to participant accounts. Let's say we send a letter or two using skip tracing services, but everything turns up a dead end. Let;s say further that the balance is greater than $5,000. May I set up a missing participant IRA and be done with it? I thought no, unless it was a plan termination, but I certainly like the idea of making lost participants someone else's problem!

We have that in ours too (Corbel), my understanding is that the DOL insisted upon it. The corporate trustee sure ain't gonna do it so someone has to. Who is responsible and who does deposits are two unrelated questions. For a small busines it should be the owner generally because he/she holds the purse strings after all. For larger organizations, it would be the CFO, who has overall responsibility for the allocation of funds. Of course that named person has minions do the work, but as the saying goes, "the buck stops here." Edit: your post does not specify but our document only requires it in the event of a corporate trustee. IF an individual is a trustee he or she already has that responsibility. I suppose if you had an individual trustee and designated a special trustee for that specific purpose, the responsibility would be transferred...

Lack of recurring contributions creates a partial plan termination, but not a disqualified plan.