movedon

Tom, ETK or anyone else... In this situation where the (Relius) NS-proto adoption agreement has the failsafe box checked (evil), but the base document (4.3(m)) clearly says that the failsafe applies in the case of RPT failure due to a last day rule or hours requirement (and not, presumably, due to controlled group issues), then why wouldn't the average benefits test be your next step (rather than jumping straight to aggregating)? Am I correct in assuming that the ABT is on the table if the failed RPT has nothing to do with accrual requirements?

Better consider the break-in-service rules. Ba-dum-chhhh.

Weaver Partners is another out of Chicago.

OK, so I have software that ran fine on XP but doesn't want to seem to run in Windows 7 64 bit, even with compatibility mode or whatever. So if I install this VirtualBox thingy, is the old software just going to load right up, or do I actually need to then install Windows XP?

If only I were well-adjusted and optimistic enough to be so charitable... I've dealt with enough fund family and brokerage 800 number types and "plan specialists" (and their managers, and their managers' managers) over the years to know that this kind of incompetence is systemic and extremely frustrating. And I don't want to write a letter and talk to three different people every time I want to do something as simple as handle a forfeiture in accordance with the plan document. I feel like these people are taught to stick to their guns no matter what and never consider the possibility that the person on the other end of the phone knows what they're talking about. Maybe it's a securities regulations issue sometimes, but I feel like there is a real problem with idiots failing to do what I tell them to do and thinking for themselves (and being wrong) way too much. Grr.

Not sure who you're asking, but I'll offer my opinion. Regardless of whether or not the plan is new comp, if you have a year where some people are getting one rate of ps contributions (11%, say), and some others (nonkey NHCEs, I'm assuming) are getting a lower rate attributable to a top heavy minimum (3% or whatever), then I think you start with a coverage test that considers the "top heavy only" people as nonbenefiting. If that passes, then you're done. Technically, if the plan is new comp, depending on the language in the document, you may need to general test the 11% group (without considering the 3% group, since the 11% passed coverage without them), but that test will always pass on an allocation basis because everyone in the test is getting the same contribution. I think this is what Mike was getting at above, and it's what I was addressing in my third post. In any event, again regardless of whether or not the plan is new comp, if the above coverage test fails and will only pass if you consider the 3% people as benefiting, then you'll need to general test the whole group (including the 11% folks and the 3% folks). Depending on the census, that might pass on a contribution basis (and no, there's no gateway if you're testing on a contribution basis). If not, you'd then move to cross-testing, which would require the gateway. If it gets to this point, you're going to be comparing the various failed tests looking for the one with the cheapest fix (gateway will require at least an additional 2/3% for the 3% folks). I realize the 3% group might not all actually be at 3% because of the match, but assuming they're all NHCEs, I don't think that affects the process. EDIT - as chc93 said, you need to watch your document and make sure it doesn't tie your hands on any of this. If it does, then an amendment may be necessary.

True, what I should have said was that like a design-based safe harbor, if everyone's getting the same percentage, there's nothing to general test. Well, there's a general test, but it's an allocation-based general test that you can do in your head.

I don't think it matters whether the plan is new comp or not - if everyone is getting the same percentage of comp as a ps contribution, then the plan satisfies the design-based safe harbor (and would satisfy the general test, anyway). If people are not all getting the same percentage of comp as a ps contribution (and not satisfying some other design-based safe harbor), then you may need to general test. If you have a few people getting a top heavy minimum ps contribution and everyone else getting a regular ps contribution of 11%, you should start with a coverage test considering the top-heavy-only-people as "not benefiting." If that passes (and all the top-heavy-only-people are NHCEs), then you can stop there. If it fails, then you need to general test the ps contribution. That would be true even if the normal ps contribution was a straight pro rata contribution.

The DOL "guy" is not a guy. It's Phyllis Borzi. Have you seen Phyllis? Ha, I'm here all night folks!

This seems like a trick question. If it's tested it will pass, so what's the problem? Wait, let me guess - is there a nonkey getting a top heavy minimum? If so, and if the plan doesn't pass 410(b) without considering the "top heavy only" person/people as benefiting, then yeah, it needs to be general tested.

Ehh, I'm gonna vote that the private audit system is a little bit of a hoax in the first place, and this DOL guy probably isn't that far off base on the value of a limited scope audit.

I'll share my major concern - controlled group testing. I've been shopping for testing software lately, and while there's a lot that's appealing about ftw (price, for one), I am concerned that the software "can't handle" controlled groups for testing purposes (per the lady that did my training session). I'm sure the system can be tricked into doing most of the work, but it sounds like there's going to be a certain amount of manual silliness involved in getting the compiled results. I'd love to hear first hand accounts of ftw's handling of controlled group testing from anyone with any experience. There's another recent thread around here somewhere about ftw, by the way.

Me, too. In fact, I do it with my own plan - and when I have a year where I decide not to defer, I write "except for in 20xx I elect to defer $0" in the margin .

Thanks for the reply, Kevin. Working for me now, too.

Bumpity bump. Site's still down. Anyone know why?

Site's been down for about eighteen hours now. Anyone know what what?

Thanks for the replies, guys. Blaze is one of the options I've heard of but have never used and wasn't sure if I should check them out. Sounds like their software does at least one thing that Ft William doesn't do. Anyone else had any experience with Ft William having any kind of unfortunate limitations? EDIT - typos

Relius is one.

Monday bump. Anyone?

I'm thinking about buying some testing software. I'm a freelance consultant. I don't administer plans, but I do some DC plan testing now and then - 410(b), general testing, ADP & ACP, etc. Sometimes I test one year for a client, sometimes several years - usually in the context of EPCRS work. Up until now, I've done it in Excel, but I'm getting into some bigger plans and some bigger controlled groups with more plans and more testing issues, and I want to use commercial software to check my work. So, I've used Relius and Datair in the past and I'm looking into both of them now. The Ft William thread got me thinking maybe I should look beyond just those two. Ft William seems well-liked, and their pricing looks competitive - especially for someone like me that might just buy it for a year at a time here and there. It also seems to be web-based, and I like that. Can anyone confirm or deny any of the above re Ft William and/or suggest any other software worth considering besides the three I've mentioned? Thanks for your time.

Well now, in the east they are called Peking Ravioli... I, too, used the suffix "king" when referring to Ravioli when I responded to my m-i-l.

Well now, in the east they are called Peking Ravioli...

And just to be clear, I'm not suggesting anyone should play chicken with the IRS with their plan documents, but just that, as some were suggesting here, if you remove concerns over DLs from the equation, it's not all that clear what the document/amendment requirements are.

This is verbatim the answer I got from an ERISA Attorney who suffice it to say "knows his stuff." But if someone can show me that "section 401Whatever says thou shall restate every 5 years" I would LOVE to read it. It seems to me that any such requirement would be mandating Form and not Content. I like this answer, and it's a better said version of my own conclusion. I have never found any clear authority on the subject. All the material deals with the what you need to do assuming you want a DL, but there isn't anything that I know of that deals with what happens if you choose not to bother with a DL. Furthermore, suppose you are on a pre-approved document and you fail to restate timely - are you now simply on an IDP without a letter? And what about plans not subject to ERISA? Supposing they don't want a DL, are they required to have a plan document at all? Whoa, sorry for the threadjack.

Like all those credentials, I find that the biggest benefit to me of the ERPA designation is marketing. As a CPC, I've long ignored other credentials that have come along because I didn't feel like they gave me any improvement over "CPC" from a marketing standpoint. I wasn't very excited about taking exams after all these years, but I ultimately decided to do the ERPA thing because I felt like being "licensed to practice before the IRS" was a worthy characteristic of the credential. I've had the credential (ERPA) for about a year, and I do feel like it is worthwhile in that regard.