BG5150

^ but it puts pressure on the ER to determine what a hardship is for everyone.

I would put it under "other income." To be honest, I don't think it matters a whole heckuva lot if you put it in other interest of other income.

Yes. If you already did the refunds, than a 1-to-1 QNEC should probably be done. Problem might be that you cannot disaggregate the otherwise excludables. So, if you have to re-run the test with everyone in it, you may get higher refunds. SCP, not VCP, though.

Why can't the ER loan him the money?

(totally noob question) Can you not amend the tax form?

Rich, It looks like the other people qualified for the plan at one time or another. Whether or not they are making 401(k) contributions is irrelevant. They are participants in the plan even if they are just allowed to make 401(k) contributions (and choose not to). Therefore, unless all the other people are the spouses of the owner then it is not a "one participant" plan. I would say 4 participants, 1 account balance.

What do banks in the area (of the employer) charge for similar loans?

Most plan docs only allow waivers if the waiver is completed prior to becoming a participant in the plan.

Did you ask Corbel what their thoughts are? You're paying Derrin & his cohorts a lot of dough. Take advantage of it.

Forfeitures can be used to offset an ERs obligation to a DB plan. What's the difference?

Just don't check off Sched C as an attachment in question 10 on the 5500. Wouldn't the algorithm feed off of that?

I would counter to the vendor the 30 days is not mandatory, but merely a safe harbor date. It's 30 or what's reasonable under the circumstances.

Tom, your language comes from the restatement (for ERISA probably). It doesn't say anything about subsequent amendments. In the OP's case, I would think there is no excluded class in the plan doc at the moment. So everyone who was eligible as/of the restatement date continues to be eligible. However, come 7/1/14, everyone in "Division A" is excluded, that amendment trumps what was in the document signed 5 years ago.

The OP says it's a SH match. There is no way the govn't would let you put a vesting schedule on a missed SH match. I agree that the made up match (SH or regular) is NOT a QNEC and would be considered a match however the terms of the plan defines it (stated, discretionary, SH, SHQACA, etc)

However, it seems that I erred in saying that deferrals didn't count toward TH for Keys. I simply never knew that. I guess the grand majority of the case I deal with either exclude keys from TH, or the companies make a PS or SH to all that's greater than 3%.

Please see my first sentence: "If in fact..."

OP says it's a SH match.

If in fact the Key EE in question is supposed to get a TH minimum, the 5% deferral doesn't count toward it. He or she must get a 3% ER contribution. For the future, you may want to amend the plan to give the TH to only the non-Key EEs.

To me, that looks like standard restatement stuff meaning you won't have to re-satisfy eligibility requirements just because there was a restatement. The OP states that there will be an amendment excluding a class of people. As we all know, eligibility is not a protected class. You can take someone's eligibility away. And unless the amendment specifically says that it only applies to new people, it applies to anyone in that class. To me, they (those with no balances) are no longer participants in the plan. The first definition of an active EE for 5500 purposes is someone who is covered under the plan AND is earning service credit. I would venture to say that people in the now-excluded class who have a balance is "covered" AND they are earning service credit. Those without a balance are earning service credit but are NOT covered under the plan, so they will no longer be counted in the 5500 count.

If the person was an owner of a fund on the ex-date, what right does the plan have to take a dividend from him?

I always looked at it like this: 2013 is a year. That year is from 1/1/13 to 12/31/13, not 1/1/13 to 1/1/14. When someone is hired 7/2/13, I use the same approach. His year is 7/2/13 to 7/1/14.

Who wrote the document? Ask them for their interpretation.

Not true. They can have these "brokerage accounts" but the Trustees limit the funds allowed in the accounts to a predetermined schedule of investments (a "fund menu").

And I just KNOW everyone had the refunds done at the custodian by the 13th this year, so all the check dates were on or before 3/14!

Does the plan allow hardship distributions from 401(k) amounts? Does the plan allow for inservice withdrawals before age 59.5?