Kevin C

Being a QACA requires that the compensation definition used to determine the match satisfy 414(s) [1.401(k)-3(j)1)(i)]. With the definition used failing 414(s), it has to be fixed. First, check your plan document. Some of them automatically revert to gross comp if the specified safe harbor compensation definition fails 414(s). As for the match being reduced when compensation increases, can you provide a numerical example? I don't see how that would happen. I also think you have a typo in your OP with the match formula. For the PS, you are not required to allocate using a 414(s) compliant compensation, you just have to test using one. See 1.414(s)-1(a)(2).

A corrective allocation for 2015 counts towards the 2015 Section 415 limit, regardless of when it is deposited. The following provision has been part of EPCRS for several revisions:

In WS36, Sue Diehl said the 403(b) opinion letters are expected to be sent out in the Spring of 2017. I took that as probably the end of March or in April.

We also do auto rollovers from $0 - $5,000, but we use Millennium Trust. Besides there being no authority for doing 100% withholding, I imagine the IRS doesn't like it because there would be tax issues for individuals who had 100% withholding. If you can't find them to pay them, you can't find them to send the 1099-R. They would end up having unreported taxable income and additional withholding that they don't include on their tax return, because they did not get a distribution check or a 1099-R.

I asked the ERISA attorney most of our ESOP clients use about how much the coming pre-approved ESOP documents will affect his practice. He replied that there is more than enough work for ESOPs other than the plan document to keep him busy. The last ESOP he helped install for a client involved three owners moving to a leveraged 100% ESOP-owned S-Corp. There were nearly 20 legal documents he prepared in addition to the plan document. I don't see how you can properly start an ESOP without a competent ERISA attorney, even if you are going to use a pre-approved document.

We've never had a problem when we had to file without an audit report and amended when the report was available. But, you made me look it up. The DOL has an faq item dealing with filing without attaching the audit report. www.dol.gov/sites/default/files/ebsa/about-ebsa/our-activities/resource-center/faqs/faq-efast2.pdf The Notice of Rejection mentioned in the ASPPA article Austin linked in his first post is sent by the DOL when a return is rejected as incomplete under ERISA 104(a)(4). 104(a)(5) provides for the 45 day correction period. The article says the letters the DOL sent last year about missing audits were not Notices of Rejection, so they did not start the 45 day clock ticking. From 2560.502c-2(b)

We had a similar situation come up last year. Because of a large loan balance in the prior 12 months that had been paid off, the participant could not borrow what he wanted. The plan allowed two loans. After taking a loan for the maximum, he got on-line and Relius was showing that he could take another loan. I worked through the numbers and sure enough, he was eligible for another loan. It's not logical, but that's how the rules work. Austin, what you are missing is that the $50,000 is reduced by the excess (if any) of the highest outstanding loan balance in the prior 12 months over the current loan balance. When he takes the first $8,616 loan, that changes the adjusted $50,000 limit to $17,232.58 ($50,000-(41,383.71-.8,616.29)). When you subtract the current $8,616 balance from $17,232, he can take another $8,816, IF the plan allows a second loan.

Before you leap, you might want to google "immigration discrimination". There are a number of federal laws prohibiting discrimination based on immigration status, national origin and other related criteria.

Our VS document has the typical provision that jpod is referring to, that the beneficiary is entitled to the vested account balance upon the death of the participant. I find it really puzzling that any service provider would want to step into a fiduciary role and decide that paperwork signed shortly before the participant's death would overrule the document provision regarding how benefits are distributed after the participant's death. I can see letting the plan sponsor make that decision, but I wouldn't want to be the one to do it. Let's change the situation a little. Participant retires and signs distribution paperwork on Monday and the form is faxed to the provider on Friday. Also on Friday, the plan is served a QDRO that assigns 100% of participant's benefit to his ex. Would you still process the distribution to the participant the following Wednesday?

whyindaheck, I would complete the form through the section on surviving children and leave the parts asking about siblings blank. If your sister doesn't want to provide her SSN for the form, leave it off of the form. It can be provided later. Then, see how Fidelity responds. As mentioned, dealing with Fidelity usually tests your patience.

While not official guidance, the following is on the IRS website. www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/403b-pre-approved-plan-program-faqs-remedial-amendment-period That matches information our document provider sent in a newsletter.in 2015.

With no HCE's, a new comp PS allocation of the desired amounts should work unless the allocations make some of them hit the 415 limit. If they hit 415, you might be able to spread the amounts over two years of PS contributions. You don't say if the 403(b) is ERISA covered. Adding an employer contribution would make it subject to ERISA if it isn't currently covered and isn't a church plan.

The rules for SH plans having a final plan year are in 1.401(k)-3(e)(4). Not being able to afford the match is a long way from having a substantial business hardship. With the limited information you provided, he probably falls under 1.401(k)-3(e)(4)(i), which means the accrual continues until the effective date after 30 days advanced notice was given to employees. Was a notice of the suspension of the safe harbor match given to participants?

From The ADP/ACP failure correction method in Rev. Proc. 2013-12, Appendix A .03:

Is this what you meant to say? If so, I would disagree that it is possible to amend mid-year to exclude some compensation from the SH compensation definition. Excluding compensation would reduce the SH contribution, which triggers the rules in 1.401(k)-3(g). As for the new ability to amend to increase the match, I think that was done in response to constant requests that we should be allowed to do so. Requiring it to be retroactive so that it applies for the entire plan year should make it more difficult to game the system. It also makes sure all participants are treated the same for the plan year, even if they terminated before the change was made. Regardless of the reason, those are the conditions they put on being able to amend to increase the safe harbor formula during the year.

Does this help? I'm not seeing the changes this refers to, but then, reading 2013-12 when I don't have to tends to make my eyes glaze over.

One more try ...

Anyone?

Has anyone dealt with a similar issue before? We were approached yesterday by a non-profit with a similar situation, plus an extra issue. They have 3 executives with 457(b) benefits. Two are retired and one still active. Unfortunately, they can not find a copy of any 457(b) documents. Their HR person is fairly new and the plan(s) were put in place years ago. the executives don't have a copy, either. The 457(b) is briefly referenced in their employment contracts, but no information about payment timing. It's likely the retired executives should have already been paid. But, without a document, we don't know what the default distribution timing was supposed to be. Per Rev. Proc. 2013-12, the IRS won't accept a non-profit 457(b) under EPCRS, so a non-amender VCP filing to fix the document problem is not possible. Any suggestions other than to run?

What does the plan say? The rule you want is in 1.411(a)-11©(3)(i) and applies at the date the distribution commences. Your document may or may not have the same provision.

Is this what you are looking for?

A Church plan is not subject to ERISA unless it elects to be. The procedure for making the election is detailed in 1.410(d)-1©. It takes more than just filing a 5500 to make a Church plan subject to ERISA.

The plan amendment to remove Company B from the safe harbor plan would suspend the safe harbor contributions for Company B employees. I think that would put you under 1.401(k)-3(g). If they put the language in the SH notice that they may reduce or suspend the SH contribution, they can do the amendment, but the plan would lose it's safe harbor under 1.401(k)-3(g)(1)(i)(E) or 1.401(k)-3(g)(1)(ii)(E). It would be best to wait and do the spin-off at the end of the plan year.

For most participants, I think it should come down to how important the guaranteed monthly income would be in retirement. Their other assets will affect that answer. For someone with little or no retirement savings, the answer could be different than it would be for someone with substantial other assets. If I were about to retire and had a decent DB benefit, I would likely choose the annuity because, as mentioned above, you can't take a LS and buy a comparable annuity. You also can't take the LS and withdraw the monthly amount you could have had as an annuity and expect the LS to last very long.

If the sponsor chose not to allow catch-ups, there are no catch-ups. If they want catch-ups going forward, they would need to amend the plan. With the universal availability rules, I don't see how you could add them retroactively.