TPAnnie

Thanks Mr. Bagwell, oh, that portal. LOL We're using it, just not loving it. I've been using Relius almost my entire career - I started with pentabs almost 30 years ago, then switched to Quantech about 25 years ago. I've rolled with the changes and never had such a hard time adjusting as I have to this ASP version. If only their service was better, I think it would make a huge difference. I'll look for that correspondence, I appreciate your contribution! thanks, Annie

We switched about a year ago and I hate my job with a passion - a job I used to enjoy - because of Relius ASP. I'm not being dramatic. It really is a horrible product.

Has anyone else been having trouble with Relius ASP customer service? I understand we probably aren't their ideal client, but our issues aren't being resolved. Problems like posting transactions easily see weeks turn around time, and more often than not I'm finding some manual workaround. Since they've switched to that Portal, though, I'm wondering if I'm going about submitting for help the correct way. It just seems very disjointed for the past year or so. I'm also unsure that we've gotten any correspondence about the IE discontinuance and how to log in. (I'm using our old stand alone version of the software currently because the plans I want to work on don't work on ASP.)

Thank you so much for that feedback, C.B. Zeller, it was very helpful.

We're doing testing on a takeover plan and found an issue - comp is not being capped for match. So, for their match formula of 50% of 6% deferrals, someone deferring $26k with $500k comp got a match of $15k rather than $8550. (We're right, right? That the comp must be limited, regardless of whether they're matching per payroll or annually?) I believe the correction is to forfeit the excess match, do you agree? (Also, is there an actual term used for this excess match?) Which amount goes into the ACP test, $15k or $8550? Now, to further complicate, this has been going on since 2015. (Fwiw, the higher figures' testing has always passed all testing - other than whatever test would have caught the problem.) This is such a large payroll, it would cost way too much to retro-amend the doc for a larger match. What would be the appropriate correction path to follow here? I appreciate any advice or suggestions so much, thank you!

I've looked everywhere with no luck, and while I've placed an incident request, I was hoping maybe someone here can tell me what I'm missing. I want to email pp statements for a small plan. I've checked boxes allowing electronic statements in plan specs and census data. I've entered the correct (I think) smtp info in the email under system admin. I've got a valid email for the pp. When I print the statement to email the pp, I get a timeout notice. (When I used another SMTP, I'd get a server can't be found error, which is what makes me think I've got that portion set up correctly.) It's like I'm missing an execute step, or need to authorize my mail client to send the email on Relius' behalf? Any ideas what might I be missing? thank you!

We have a 401k plan that covers several companies part of a controlled group. The plan is not top heavy and is not a 401k Safe Harbor. All employees of all companies are eligible for 401k and match, but PS component excludes one classification of employees (which is mostly HCE’s). The PS contribution is allocated on the grouping method. Because most of the non-excludables are HCE, it handily passes 410b. May one of the companies make no profit sharing contribution for it’s employees as long as 410b and the general tests under 401a4 passes? Reason for my question is, I was running projections and forgot to allocate a PS to one of the companies and yet, all my testing showed PASS. I believe the gateway test is not including that missing company because they didn’t receive a 401a benefit, which I think is correct, but it just seems too good to be true that I could not benefit one whole company. (While they are deferring and receiving a match.)

I'm sorry, cites. The plan is self-directed, with an investment consultant at a large investment company that does very detailed plan accounting as well. The trustees finalize the investment choices as suggested by the investment consultant.

All I can find is that they should "meet on a regular basis, keep minutes and document the basis for all decisions. What constitutes a "regular basis"? Any sites? Thanks!

Adding: I'm sorry to keep beating this horse, but as you can imagine, when I go in there with 2014's valuation, not only showing this doctor/owner, one of 1/2 dozen, receiving top heavy for 2014, but also telling the group that they're going to have to give it to him for 2015's plan year - yeah, well that will be fun.

I'm sorry I've been MIA! This plan is top heavy and only gives TH contribution to non-key employees. Belgarath's explanation is the way we've understood it and have been administering another plan for 10+ years. Since it comes up so often in that plan, we have a folder devoted to each year's determination, along with lots of research and notes. I pulled that plan's research file and came across notes where we addressed this exact issue in 2004 (working on a 2003 valuation). We have print outs from a TAG FAQ dated 8/6/02, a TAG response from Bill Joyner to our question about whether the TAG FAQ was still accurate dated 7/19/04 (Mr. Joyner said the answer was still accurate and valid), and a response from Corbel incident # we placed. All three state the same things as Belgarath did: under section 416(i)(1), "a key employee is any employee who at any time during the plan year containing the determination date for the plan year in questions or the 4 preceding plan years...met the key requirements". Like Belgarath asked, are you coming up with your answer because of prior ownership being taken into account, or have the determination rules changed and we've been screwing it up? Thank you all for your help!

I'm sorry I didn't mention before, his ownership is well above 5% beginning in August 2015.

I was thinking same thing. Unless ownership is 5% or less. Is his 2015 key or non-key designation not based on his 12/31/14 determination?

If we don't count the predecessor *ownership*, he'd just be a non-owner physician of our group until 2015. So I think we'd start counting him as key in 2016, based on 12/31/15 determination.

Correct, it is not CG/ASG.