BG5150

We've been using the 1984 UP life table in our calculations. (Well, in Relius) Given that many times most of the people I'm testing weren't even born by 1984, should we be using a more recent table? What you you guys use?

^^ I've seen MP plans go from, say, 3% to 0%. I see it like freezing the plan. However, I've never seen one at 0% from effective date. Maybe they could set up 1/2%, exclude HCEs, for the first year and amend it to zero the next.

What is the compnesation basis for the PS in the document? Full year or only while a participant. That will answer your question. The document knows all. (or at least most.)

unfortunately, I haven't seen any rhyme or reason as to when they deactivate them. I seen 4 or 5 years go by and they are gone, but I have had plans with 8, 9, 10 years no activity and the EIN is good as new.

Soemtimes in W2 runs, I've seen people in there twice. Are you sure this person wasn't listed twice?

Did you post the question? Did you ever get an answer?

I would go back to client and ask them.

No. It's just a matching contribution, subject to vesting, if applicable.

A payroll report will show you gross comp before any deductions, and that's what you want. With W2's, you often have to back into the correct number, the methodology depending on the state.

Right. yay. I got one right. Forward this thread to my boss!

In other words, he is key in 2015, and as such, his 12/31/15 balance is considered as a key employee. Also, if the plan is TH for 2015, and if the plan doc does not allcoate TH contribution to keys, he doesn't get one.

I was thinking same thing. Unless ownership is 5% or less.

If the trustee is the record keeper (or a related business thereof) we don't get a separate TIN for the the trust. It usually is at the big outfits.

Who is the trustee?

Oh. If you are not subject to the 70.5 withdrawal in the 401(k) plan to begin with, you don't have to take from the unrelated rollover money either.

Yes. For the year after the rollover occurred.

Here's a tip: tell your clients the deadlines are really a week or two BEFORE the actual dates. This way, you build in a cushion. {note: I have not done this yet, as the idea just came to me, so I don't have any feedback on any fallout)

This is from the Employer Cotnributions section of the BPD: To me, if the contribution is not made by then, let's say 9/15, then we have an operational defect. What's the remedy? Just fund it?

Someone's getting anxious!

We are using a prototype document. It says for the timing of contributions, they must be made by the Employer’s tax return date. What happens if they are late? My guess is that it is an operational failure. But what is the remedy? EPCRS seems to be silent on the issue.

Because I read 'monthly' even; despite the fact it clearly stated quarterly. This is why I always try to explain my reasoning. So, when I am clearly wrong, I you seen what I missed :-) But you're right, it would be 1/1; the first entry date after the 6 month period. Good Luck! Just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something.

Always use a payroll report. Some states are tougher than others to glean gross comp.

I think way back, when a lot of schedules were cliff, vesting was used as a loyalty tool. If there's a 10-year cliff and you've been there 8 years, would you want to leave and forfeit 8 years worth of PS and earnings? Could be a big chunk of change, especially for the higher paid workers. I think the acelerated vesting schedules, like 3 year cliff or graded shedules became recruiting tools--you won't have to spend 5-10 years here before you start seeing pension rewards.

How is plan entry 12/1 with plan's entry dates at quarterly?

What's the drawback to allocating as additional match? Top Heavy issues?