BG5150

See you in 2026, Bill...

Do they have immediate entry? Try making it 3 months.

Is a rollover really a "contribution"? It doesn't count toward 415. It's not tested anywhere.

Even when the original request is 13 years old?

What is the paycheck date? People use "payroll date" differently. Some use it as that date through which the person is being paid. Some use it as the actual day the person gets paid. For example, some companies pay for work done through Wednesday, put the people get paid on Friday. For plan purposes, "payroll date" in this case is Friday. Thus, you might be paid for work through December 30, but if you don't get your check until January 2, then it's January compensation. Simple question: which W2 will it be on?

Does the document have anything on leave of absence?

Do these people have a " * " next to their ACP #'s when you run the test?

In Relius, there is a set of "stock" excludables, such as "hourly," "union," "commission," etc. One of them is "Other." If you are not already using "other," you can code the people who are not getting the match as an "other" and make them ineligible on the SOURCE level (rather than on the Plan Entry screen.

I would say so.

The available rates to use are 7.5% to 8.5%. We've always used 8.5% Is there ever a situation where a lower interest rate would yield better results?

JAN.1 Plan doc doesn't say "first business day of the month". It says "first day of the month." Sunday is a business day for some companies, anyway.

We just send stuff carrier pigeon. No one ever thinks to hijack a carrier pigeon.

If the trustee knew or suspected there may not be enough compensation each pay period, did err in granting the loan in the first place?

No. The first distributions from a 401(k) plan in any RMD year must be the RMD.

Nor can you combine 401(k)s. Each qualified plan stands on its own for RMD purposes.

Just google small estate affidavit _______ [state name]

Poetic license for sure with that rhyme...

Maybe at one point, it was a viable option, and now it isn't. From what it seems, the company is not forcing people into the stock. Plans do this all the time, but probably with the "it's not a good investment" line. Fund A is no longer available for new investments. We have chosen fund X as its replacement. You can leave your money in A, or transfer it to any other investment allowable in the plan. Replace "Fund A" with this company's "stock investment".

Put your thoughts in writing, taking care to explicitly state that these are concerns of yours and not merely an attempt to be contrarian, and you fear that if discovered upon audit or investigation, fines may be levied and penalties up to and including disqualification of the plan may arise. Type it on letterhead, send it to the president of the company via registered mail. Signed by you or the president of your firm (perhaps both).

OP, what's your skin in this game? How did you get involved? (Just curious)

The TPA shouldn't confuse "participate" with "contribute." My thoughts in bold. I can't see how this is ambiguous at all.

The trustees have to weigh the pros and cons of eliminating the stock as an investment. One one hand, it seems as the participants want it in there. (Why, if the company itself sees not much upside to the stock?) On the other hand, the trustees must act in (what they believe to be) the best interests of the participants. That may or may not coincide with participant wishes. If the participant really like owning a part of the company, could the existing stock be left in the plan, and other opportunities be offered outside the plan to purchase the securities? And not allow any new purchases within the plan? (I've seen this done numerous times with fund lineups). Make sure you allow the participants the ability to get out and move to other funds if they want to. This way, I think, the trustees are covered somewhat. The plan is no longer offering a "bad" investment, except to the people who really decide to be in it. A couple thoughts that may or may not mean anything: Does it cost a lot to value the stock? Can that cost be borne by the participants as a group, or only those who have it as an investment? Could the plan sponsor send out a memo stating: "Hey, really really don't think this stock is a good fit for your retirement plan, so you can get out if you want. Don't blame us if that investment does not perform to your liking."

^ninja'd by Lou Nothing I can see in 72(p) that says you can go longer than quarterly.

Cons (?) (4) Testing of short year will have to be done. (4)(a) Some limits are prorated (5) 5500 for short year will have to be done.