BG5150

(5) Spouse An individual shall be considered as owning stock in a corporation owned, directly or indirectly, by or for his spouse (other than a spouse who is legally separated from the individual under a decree of divorce whether interlocutory or final, or a decree of separate maintenance), except in the case of a corporation with respect to which each of the following conditions is satisfied for its taxable year— (A) The individual does not, at any time during such taxable year, own directly any stock in such corporation; (B) The individual is not a director or employee and does not participate in the management of such corporation at any time during such taxable year; © Not more than 50 percent of such corporation’s gross income for such taxable year was derived from royalties, rents, dividends, interest, and annuities; and (D) Such stock in such corporation is not, at any time during such taxable year, subject to conditions which substantially restrict or limit the spouse’s right to dispose of such stock and which run in favor of the individual or his children who have not attained the age of 21 years.

I want YOUR job!

It's gotta be good! Either that or none of the people writing on this board qualifies as a "leading benefits attorneys and advisors". My ego is crushed. I sent them an e-mail asking for specific quotes. We'll see if I ever get an answer.

Does ASPPA do those take home Ethics exams (more like quizzes) any more? You read a 5-page essay and answer some questions? I think they were, like, 50 bucks.

C'mon, people. It's gotta be good!

If a loan defaults and is not offset, it stays on the books accruing interest until it is paid back or offset. It seems like this "product" will pay back the loan for you, with interest and pay you for any taxes and early w/drawal peanalties. Do you have to claim their largesse as income?

Sounds like "loan insurance"

Are you following the strict DOL procedures as to whom e-mail can be sent?

If you look through the report Butler mentioned, it says that the lower number of audits a firm does each year directly correlates to a higher number of deficient audits. And in the report, ti says one of the DOL action items will be to: The DOL also wants to revise ERISA to: 1) Allow for penatlies for late filing against the audit firm if the deficient audit casues the filing to be rejected. 2) Repeal the limited scope audit exemption, but allow the DOL to define when a LSA would be acceptable.

Where did you find that out about TPAs?

Did enough people opt out of the auto-enroll to have such a small non-key balance? has the match been allocated and deposited thus far, too? And how would the payroll company know what the balances are, and consequently that it's top heavy? Is the p/r company doing administration, too? Is there even such a feedback between the two systems?

Why would you have to stop deferrals in any even if the plan was top heavy? To lower the TH minimum? In the case of stopping at 10,000, even at max comp, you're over the 3% allocation that drives the full minimum contribution. Thoughts on how the client "communicates" with the payroll provider? "You're fired."

Never mind. It mentions 2015, so I guess it's just a "trying to be helpful" type message. /thread

recently, we have received two types of notices from the DOL. One states: hey, no audit was attached. Amend the plan and get us the audit post haste or bad stuff will ahppen. The other is a bit odder. It's "Tips for Selecting and Mnitoring a Plan Auditor" and starts off with: The notice goes on to talk about the importance of getting an good audit and choosing a good auditor. It seems to be merely informational and no futher action or penalties will ensue. The form was filed in early October and included the audited financials. So, why did we get this? Is this something that maybe should have gone out in the summer but was sent out late? Anyone else get these?

Especially since there is a last day rule. No one has actually accrued the match yet, so you can change it.

After February, no more new ERPAs. https://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/Enrolled-Retirement-Plan-Agent-ERPA-Program-Changes

This is the next paragraph, at the top of p. 6: Does that help?

Should be ok. test will fail, but all refunds will be reclassified as catchup. Any Top Heavy implications?

What happens when a plan terminates and the person who, then still employed, rolled her money out and then subsequently leaves the. company?

Send an e-mail to support@datair .com

We often have plans with a couple hundred over-matches, or Safe Harbor contribs more than 3%. In one case, we have a plan that allowed participants to defer from bonuses when they are explicitly excluded from the plan. We are trying to get procedures in place to most efficiently calculate the earnings for those transactions that have money leaving the plan. (Or at least, the participants' accounts)

So, people who had a loss are just SOL?

No.

For #3, check the plan document. The cashout threshold may be as low as $1,000. Many plans lowered it to $1,000 after the auto-rollvoer rules came out. They didn't want to deal with the hassle of setting up IRA's. Now with the proliferation of companies that welcome these small rollovers, and the ease with which an agreement can be set up, it's reasonable again to have a $5,000 cashout level again. But not everybody changed back. And this bears mentioning, as I've seen it come up recently: Check the plan doc to see if unrelated rollvoer money counts or doesn't count toward the threshold.

Slacker