austin3515

jpod, I like you're angle. 414(q) says: The term “qualified domestic relations order” means a domestic relations order— (i)which creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee’s right to, or assigns to an alternate payee the right to, receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a plan, and

Participant gets to keep 100% of his Plan Account. However, they are planning on having a QDRO indicate that the Participant's only distribution option when he becomes eligible for a distribution is to roll his or her account to an IRA. I cannot explain the rationale, but there it is in black and white in the divorce agreement. Is it possible to have a QDRO simply state that the participant keeps all the money, but that his only distribution option is a rollover to an IRA? I sure hope not, as that means the plan sponsor needs to remember this in 15 years (potentially).

I didn't tell the DOL which client I was talking about. It was a general question. And let's just say I know they haven't filed.

a) It was a letter from Scot Albert (what are the odds that a crook knows that is who it ought to be from); b) we already know they did not file; c) the domain is accurate; d) they are not asking for anything at all that would be considered sensitive; e) it was addressed to the person in our office whose email address we used to do the signing. That is an awful lot of coincidences. They just want to know why it wasn't filed, etc. No request for a credit card payment or a SS#. Plus everything was grammatically correct . But to your point, I did leave a voicemail for the contact.

And we would take them back if we get back fees and paid in advance

In this case no form was ever filed (they left us!). No mention of penatlies but I thought one of the preconditions for DFVC was that the DOL has not yet contacted you. I thought that was why it was always the IRS who contacted you.

We were the filing signer for one of our former clients that we no longer do any work for. So they signed the paper form and we did the signature. The DOL just emailed us saying they compared their records between years and found no filing for 2013. Anyway, this was a dramatic change from the standard letter from the IRS so I decided to share. Not sure what it means but I am concerned that technically the DFVC program might not be available to this former client. If they decide to take us back we will try the DFVC program of course.

Again, in today's age, data is free to migrate from one media to another so that problem has been eliminated. Look at CD's. If you had data on a cd many computers don't have CD's anymore. But the internet is here to stay, as are hard-drives whether or not those dirves are on your computer, your in-house network or on the cloud. Data is now like air, it can move freely about the world.

The document specifically says the equivalency is to be used to determine someone's "Hours of Service." So yes, it is very specific. It seems to me that based on the way the regulations / law is written, in spite of that method, by law people who work less than 20 hours a week can still be excluded. The regs permit it. By the way, I should have mentioned, that for purposes of the 410a "safety net" (i.e., 1,000 hours in 12 months) the equivalency of course WOULD apply and clearly EVERYONE will be eligible after the year of service.

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