BG5150

I agree. Also found the answer in the EOB. Thanks.

I am adding a loan feature to a plan. Currently, the distribution rules call for spousal consent in lieu of a QJSA. I have seen plans that did not have consent for distributions have it in place for loans. Could we have the reverse situation wherein SC is required for distributions but not for loans? (The owner wants a loan and there is some marital strife, and it seems unlikely the wife will oblige with her Jane Hancock.)

Are you SURE to filled out the 5558 correctly?

We have no 415 issues in this case. The larger issue is that whereas the money was contributed to the trust, it has not been allocated into the individual accounts. let's change the fact pattern and say the SH was deposited in September 2013 for the '12 year. How long of a gap is acceptable before corrections need to be made?

The employer deposited its 2012 Safe Harbor contribution in December 2013. However, the money sat in the cash account. The funds are still in the cash account, unallocated. How soon must deposits made to individual-account plans be allocated to those accounts after the funds hit the trust? (Similar question for the Profit Sharing contribution)

What's the minimum vesting you would consider?

Do they all have > 1 YOS? Any way to disaggregate them?

If the PS goes in now, be alter for 415 issues.

Another silliness point: Wouldn't the inclusion of 2A automatically mean 2E applies?

In the grand scheme of things, I would just let it go. Have plan characteristics ever been noticed by an auditor before? I think the codes are silly. They ask if the plan has a new comp PS schedule, but nothing about safe harbor. SH has been around for 15 years. You'd think the IRS/DOL would like to track how many safe harbor plans there are out there.

Why do you say that? Unless it's a Safe Harbor Match, there is no reason a payroll calculation has to be deposited any sooner than an annual one.

Is the ER balking at calculating the match every pay period? Can't the payroll software easily do that?

Tell them if they won't do it, you'll find someone who will. My guess is they are a "directed" record keeper and should do as they are directed, as long as there is no direct contradiction to the regs.

Only ADP/ACP testing. Top heavy.

Did the custodian say the correction MUST be made? Or is it their suggested course of action? How much would the lost earnings be? Is it a small price to pay should the plan ever get investigated? Hey, DOL, look. We goofed in favor of an HCE/key employee, but made up for it.

Me? No. DB plans are far from my bailiwick.

Ah. my bad

I think you would be ok. This is assuming all HCE/NHCE shown are benefiting for the year. For 401(k) I get: (227/227) / (53/53) = 1.00 or 100% For Match I get: (54/277) / (0/53) = N/A test passes, no HCEs For PS I get: (173/227) / (53/53) = 0.762 or 76.2%

Did you ask the actuary his or her basis for not including them?

Remember, there are two distinct and separate HCE tests. You add the results together. 1) Ownership test: 5% owners and those attributed ownership. THEN 2) Compensation test. 2a) Flat HCE compensation limit test. Everyone who made more than the applicable HCE compensation limit is an HCE --or-- 2b) Top Paid group. Everyone in the top fifth of total compensation (that is over the HCE limit) is an HCE. Anyone who is in either or both of the tests is an HCE.

The plan we deal with says that if an account is not paid out 5 years after it becomes payable because the participant cannot be located, the account will be forfeited. (As long as the administrator sent a registered letter with return receipt to the last know address) It's a Volume Submitter plan, so that provision has the IRS blessing, at least.

This is what we do.

Who uses a mouse with a trackball any more?

And then send a support ticket to the program vendor to see why it's calculating that way.

Indeed.