BG5150

Two employers in a "closed MEP" calendar year 401(k) plan (they have a business relationship that is neither a CG nor ASG.) Call them Company L and Company M. Company L sponsors the plan, and M signs a joinder agreement. Late in 2015, as of 11/1, Company M leaves the MEP and starts its own plan. The doc was written with a short plan year 11/1 to 12/31. Is this a spin-off? From my very quick search of the topic, a spin-off retains the plan year of the original. But if this is considered a new plan, it can have any plan year it wants. Again? Is this a spin-off? Company M was/is its own employer, so that is not changing. Participants were not given an option to cash out or do direct rollovers.

I'm with MoJo on this, and not just from the record keeper angle. Having the participant send the checks to the employer first, and having the employer send it over via "payroll," allows the plan sponsor and trustee better audit the plan. This leads me to a question: If the participant is sending checks (either directly or via the employer) can there be a failure to remit timely if the person is late in sending his/her checks?

I would just take it out.

Who files paper returns any more (other than EZs)?

Wait. Did the person work 1000 hours from 1/1 to 5/2?

From the EOB: See the bolded. I know it's not black letter law, but I would consider the loan obligation occurring at the time all the signatures (or computer authorizations) are finalized.

So say I have $10,000 in my account on Tuesday. I apply for a $5,000 loan, and everything is signed and sent back that day. Due tot he 3-day processing window at the carrier, my loan isn't processed until Friday morning where the balance has dropped to $9,500. How could you process a loan for $4750? All my paperwork and schedule say $5,000.

Here is the same release from SunGard's Press Room https://www.sungard.com/company/newsroom/press-releases/2015/corporate113015

Looks it the deal was completed Nov. 30. http://www.investor.fisglobal.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=180304&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=2118700

I don't.

Not 1,000 hours. So, no. Person is no longer retired.

no one?

For 402(g) excesses taken BEFORE April 15 after year in question: Gross amount: taxed for year in question. If distributed before Dec 31, 1099-R code is 8. Between 1/1 and 4/15, it's P. Earnings: taxed in year of distribution. Code 8. For 402(g) excesses taken AFTER April 15 after year in question: Gross amount: Taxed in year in question AND year of distribution. 1099-R codes P and 8. Earnings: taxable in year of distribution. Code 8. Does this also apply to impermissible deferrals (eg before becoming eligible) or if going over a plan limit (eg deferring 11% when plan limit is 10%)

I would suggest doing a search first, as your question my have been answered before.

"The govn't said so." ends a lot of those conversations

You can do these online. Takes two minutes.

Fortunately, for now, I don't ahve that problem Test passes using shifting method.

I'm with you, Tom. That's kinda why I asked my question. It seems silly that the only way to fix a failed ACP test is to give something to EVERYONE. (Well, I guess it's no so silly if you think that everyone would something if they failed ADP--same # of people involved in both cases whether it's all or just those who defer)

So, basically, if the plan fails ACP and it's not corrected in one year, ALL NHCE's eligible will have to get something? Often, this will lead to having to open up several to dozens to maybe hundreds of accounts with tiny balances. That seems a somewhat Draconian punishment. (Side note, I just found out that the test eventually passed using the shifting method, so in THIS case, I'm ok. But the knowledge of how to correct ina future case might be handy.) And, Tom, I always thought that QNECs could be used in the ACP test. They just can't do "double duty," same dollars used for ADP and ACP. (Providing the doc allows for it.)

Does anyone have a good earning calculation worksheet? The one I'm using if definitely faulty, as it is showing me a greater loss than what the account earned over the year. For example, I have 100 loss in the account, but the spreadsheet is using 106 loss overall. I used to have a good one in a previous job, that that has been lost to posterity.

Tom, in Appendix B 2.01(b), it starts: (b) One-to-One Correction Method. (i) General. In addition to the correction method in Appendix A, a failure to satisfy the ADP test or ACP test may be corrected by using the one-to-one correction method set forth in this section 2.01(1)(b). So, this 1-to-1 can be used for the ACP test.

Ihave a plan that failed ACP for 12/31/14 and never did refunds. So, now we are in SCP and have two options: QNEC to fix test or refunds and a 1-to-1 QNEC in the amount of the refunds. My questions: EPCRS says: For purposes of this section .03, employees who would have received a matching contribution had they made elective deferrals must be counted as eligible employees for the ACP test, and the plan must satisfy the ACP test. Does that mean all eligible people in the ACP test gets the QNEC? Or can I limit it to just the people who had match? If a plan chooses to do ACP refunds and a 1-to-1 QNEC, is there still an excise tax due because of the late distribution of the refunds? This is a 12/31/14 PYE. And same question: does the QNEC go to all eligibles under ACP, or only the deferrers? (I think I made that last word up)

When doing the nondiscriminatory classification test, we use the mid point between the safe harbor and non-safe harbor numbers. Are those two numbers (sh and nsh) used for anything else? If we are always using the midpoint, why have 2 #'s?

You get what you pay for. They aren't a low-cost provider for nothing.

Didn't the transaction history get shifted over to the Ascensus platform? Can't you get your reports from there?