austin3515

Tom, there is a big difference here and that is that the media today is far more portable than your old 8 track. So for that reason, pdf's will either exist in their current form, or have some form of a conversion to the newest fad that admittedly might take years and years. But then again, perhaps it will take the course of bitmap files. Most pictures are jpegs, but I can still open a file called Monchrome Bitmap, and I'm willing to bet some of those files were originally stored 5.25 floppies!

Stay on point please, that's a different question then what I asked I don't disagree with you, that just wasn't the question.

Plan document excludes anyone who "does not regularly work 20 hours per week." Now, in a separate note, "Hours of Service" is defined as 195 hours per month if you work at least 1 hour in that month (or whatever the equivalency is). I believe that the 20 hours per week exclusion does NOT pull in the Hours of Service definition because it does not use the term Hours of Service. Has this question ever been addressed? I'm using the Hours of Service definition everywhere that it DOES apply. It does not seem to apply to the 20 hours per week exclusion though. (actually, I never would have drafted the plan this way - I got a question about this from a friend of mine).

That;s correct. The union can bargain to be covered by both plans, neither plan, or any combination thereof. The bargaining process supersedes the coverage tests.

Make sure you have the conversation in November/December. At that point you still have two options: Cash bonus, or profit sharing. Aftter 12/31 it's too late to do a bonus to get your withholdign paid in, etc. As tax professionals always say, you can't do tax planning in January. Based on how the question was phrased, I'm assuming you are taxed as a corporation (i.e., via w2 wages) and not as a partnership (via K-1).

I missed this part of the statement. No contribution for 2013. Plan has to be effective in 2013.

It would not. It's not an exclusion based on service. IT's an exclusion based on the fact that they are covered by another plan. If they can bargain for it, there is nothing stopping them.

Correct. Fiscal year is only relevant for max deductible and when the contribution must be funded,

Let me see if I can help. I will assume the plan document was signed before 12/31/2013. For the 12/31/2013 plan year, contributions are allocated based on 2013 compensation, assuming that is what the plan says (I'd be very surprised if it did not). What the fiscal year of the employer is irrelevant with respect to how to allocate the contributions. The next question is what return is the 2013 contribution deducted on. The 404 rules require that the deduction taken be allocated as of a date within the fiscal year. So the 1/31/14 return can deduct the contribution allocated as of 12/31/2013. The due date for that contribution to be eligible for a deduction is based on the fiscal year, so the contribution would be due April 15th 2014 (assuming it is a corporation) with an extended due date of 10/15/2014 regardless of the form of entity. When determining compliance with the maximum deductible rules, the max is based on compensation paid during the taxable year. I am a little unclear on how precisely that is done, but as long as the compensation levels are similar and you are not bumping right up against the 25% limit I would not worry too much about that. So for example if 75,000 = 4% of eligible wages in the plan year, I don't think you need to concern yourself unless there was some extenuating circumstance that would contradict this otherwise reasonable assumption.

Any definition that satisfies the safe harbor can be used: Full year pay / Comp as a participant Include/Exclude Taxable Fringe Benefits Gross of / net of Pre-tax deferrals (including Roth even though it is after-tax) Any definition that satisfies the comp ratio test (AND the definition doesn't by design favor HCE's, with some exceptions like excluding over-time/bonus). https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.414(s)-1 BUT check your doc. Most documents allow you to run testing on any 414s definition, but some documents (I think mostly attorney drafted ones, but probably some large bundled providers too) will include a specific definition for testing presumably because they think it is simpler.

Apparently option 1 below will wipe out all existing elections, so if Johnny is contributing 8%, he gets dropped down to 3%. Can anyone explain to me why you would ever use option 1? Option 2 would leave anyone contributing more than 3% alone. 1. [X] All Participants. All Participants, regardless of any prior Salary Deferral Agreement. 2. [ ] Affirmative Election of at least Automatic Deferral amount. All Participants, except those who have an Affirmative Election in effect on the effective date of the Automatic Deferral provisions that is at least equal to the Automatic Deferral amount and except as otherwise provided below with respect to the escalation of deferral provisions.

Its definitely part of the calculation. To be excluded you would have to see something in the plans definition of compensation excluding "comp paid during the period of a hardship suspension" which you are not going to find.

Announcement 2007-63 For plan years in which the Schedule P is eliminated, the Service will treat the plan’s filing of a return from the applicable Form 5500 series as if the filing constitutes a return of the plan’s employee benefit trust for purposes of § 6501(g)(2). Thus, the Service will not assess income taxes with respect to an employee benefit trust later than the limitations periods specified in section 6501 for the assessment of tax related to the Form 5500 filed by the plan to which the trust relates. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/a-07-63.pdf

But if there is no trust ID#, then use the sponsor's EIN?

Ah, but that's just it. The IRS is making it mandatory for 2015. At least that's their intent (the 2015 5500-SUP is still in draft form). Clear as mud.

5500-SF, Line 14a Schedule H/I, Line 6a Sincerely, The Crazy TPA

What is the name of the Trust? Am I crazy or would this be the name of the Plan (unless the Trust specifically includes a different name).

FYI, if anyone is attending this conference for ERPA credit, a) you need to make sure ASPPA has your PTIN (it is not requested on the form); b) apparently after the conference is over you need to request ASPPA to report the credits for you to the IRS. Sounds crazy for such a distinguished presentation that I'm sure will draw in hundreds of ERPA's. Anyway, beware. Perhaps someone from ASPPA can comment and clarify if I have misstated the inefficiencies of the process, or perhaps someone has some additional input. I certainly hope I am missing something...

I agree it is required (and yes that;s the disclosure), our Software just didn't start including it until recently.

FT for the first time on the 2014 SAR's is adding into the SAR the disclosure that there are "non-exempt transactions with parties in interest" (or something to that affect) when we indicate that there were late deposits. Are other software providers doing this too? It is a true statement of course, but I am just curious if there was any printed position on this from DOL, etc. I know for example that we do not attach the Schedule G for these on an audited plan. Somehow I doubt the DOL ever said "it's ok if you don't tell your participants about this" but thought I would ask.

I fall back on the rule of thumb Sal Tripodi sets forth in the EOB. Imagine the public policy position of disallowing an amendment that expands coverage. It's ridiculous. So Employer A excludes Class B from the Plan, but desires to provide Class B with retirement benefits. IRS disqualifies the Plan or penalizes Employer A merely for providing retirement benefits to a class of people it was previously denying such benefits. It is too hard to imagine even for the IRS. According to Sal, disallowing such an amendment that so clearly contradicts established public policy is "ridiculous" (I think in one version of his book he actually uses the word ridiculous).

I think you meant to say was that "if a plan DID have everyone in their own rate group..." Correct? Also you mentioned passing the "coverage test" in your first paragraph but I think you mean ratio percentage.

I answered this in my original post. Someone who knows the rules ought to be the judge of compliance.

I take you have a negative view on society... I think the vast majority of people are honest law abiding citizens who would not falsify information even dire circumstances. Certainly no requirement to hire a private detective to validate information, but asking for the records seems like a reasonable means of ensuring compliance. What about spousal waivers. Participant says "oh, we got divorced 4 years ago!" to which the prudent administrator says "OK, get me a copy of the divorce decree." Or how about "you have an incorrect date of birth for me, I turned 50 last year" to which the prudent plan administrator says "OK, let me just get a photocopy of your drivers license." I think too that the mere fact that participants a) are desperate, and b) do not have expertise in the definition of what a hardship is (which medical epxenses are covered, is my leaky roof a casualty or just wear and tear, using proceeds to payoff student loans) makes the possibility of noncompliance so incredibly high that the plan administrator would be way too remiss in leaving it to the participant to verify. It's akin to letting the fox guard the henhouse.

Was Fidelity the source of the IRS's newsletter regarding ensuring that plan sponsors keep hardship documentation? http://dcda.fidelity.com/static/dcle/WPSFidelityPerspectives/documents/FF_YFC_42215_Hardship_withdrawal_721275_final_041715.pdf It certainly seems that way. The largest 401k provider in the country says "ee's can self certify hardships" which as far as I know is quite contrary to everything I ever read on the topic. Just curious... Any thoughts on whether or not Fidelity will win this fight? They certainly put together quite a defense...