BG5150

Or was this one of the Trustees' accounts? Or another HCE?

Remember, though, if you have a safe harbor, you cannot impute disparity on that piece.

I get it now.

Um, pretty much none.

What's a Red Cup? (other than the thing I play beer pong with)

We don't even get pay stubs any more. They are available at anytime online, though.

Doesn't it come down tot he loan agreement? Can't you have a cure period that is less than the statutory max?

On that note, do the work per the ERISA counsel. Keep their written opinion on the matter, and in your correspondence to the client, add something to your cover piece such as: We have allocated your 2015 PRofit Sharing according to the plan document and according to the opinions (guidance, recommendations, etc) of ________ (name of ERISA person).

FWIW, then, I don't believe those who terminate after PYE is a valid business classification for the PY in question. The PS gets allocated as/of PYE, so, it's imposing a future condition on a current allocation.

Sorry. Missed the everyone in own group thing

But what about the middle classification? Those who terminate AFTER the plan year. Can you do that?

I'm not sure about the middle one. You allocate for the plan year given, and should be able to do it, ostensibly, on 12/31 (assuming calendar year plan). At that time, how do you know who will leave after that?

Oftentimes, landlords require first and last months rent plus at least a month rent in security deposit. So maybe this person doesn't have 3 months of rent saved up.

It overwrites it.

PS Grouping method: Owners in own group. All others in a single group. 4 owners at 25%. Son of one of the owners is a participant. Is he in his own group? Or with all others?

OK, thanks

So, we start with 14A and subtract the 179 deduction?

Side note: same thing for 1% owner and Key determination.

Yes. to your question. Earnings calculated tot he point of correction. Your earnings calc is good for 7 days, so you don't need up-to-the-minute earnings. However, be careful of your correction. The excess allocation (with earnings) should be moved to the 'suspense' account (EPCRS's term), and those funds can ONLY be used to offset the next Employers contribution. In fact, EPCRS says that no other ER contribution can be made until those funds are exhausted. I know circumstances often dictate that the funds are moved to the plan's "forfeiture" account for lack of a suspense account. But be careful not to use those funds for fees.

Furthermore, it does seem that if you fail both tests and you have fail-safe language in the doc, you must bring in people according to the formula until you pass the ratio test. No mention of the ABT otherwise.

Also, from Datair's EGTRRA BPD: Again, seems like you can use the ABT if you want.

Tom, we use the FT William document, too, and I see the exact wording in Section 4.03(d) in the Basic Plan Document. There are sub-subsections (1) and (2) describing the correction. The very last sentence in the section says: (emphasis mine) That to me says you can use the ABT if you want. If you look at the indentation of the paragraphs, the last sentence applies to sections (1) and (2) of 4.03(d).

This is from our document regarding the fail-safe corrections: Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Plan Administrator always retains the option to meet the minimum coverage requirements of Code section 410(b) by using the average benefits test of Code section 410(b)(1)©. And from another document: Fail-Safe Allocation. Failure of the ratio percentage test of Code section 410(b)(1) or the average benefits test of Code section 410(b)(2) requires correction using the principles set forth in this Section if such use is elected in the Adoption Agreement. So this seems to say you must use the Fail-Safe procedures only if your are failing both the ratio and ABT's. (And it seems you may use the Fail-Safes if you don't want to run the ABT

Doesn't the "PS" portion of the coverage test include ALL nonelective contributions, meaning Safe Harbor, too? Unless you have an excluded class, you should have 100% coverage.

I realize in the above example, both the HCEs and Managers are in their own group. I was thinking, what if group 1 was HCEs and group 2 was managers.