BG5150

And that's something the new r/k would have nothing to do with.

1) Plan must allow for it. 2) Participant must ask for it. 3) It can't run afoul of the reamortization rules. What does the new r/k mean by unilaterally reamortizing the loans? Giving people more money? Make up for lost payments? Extend all loans out to 5 years?

^^ And continue to be an asset int he plan until offset.

I think the loan should have been defaulted at the end of the quarter following the quarter in which first loan loan payment was missed. Period. Any loan corrections or modifications you want to do should be done under VCP, I believe.

C'mon, Bird! You're slackin'!

In General Instructions for Certain Information Returns

Enhanced SH Match can be as high as you want it for ADP purposes. Any SH match on deferrals over 6% does not satisfy ACP SH. (That doesn't answer your question, but I thought it was worth mentioning.)

Reminder: And their balances are removed from the numerator AND denominator for top heavy calcs.

What does JH do for other distributions? Such as severance of employment? One of the features of the service should be that JH does distributions and 1099's. is this a JH Annuity product?

That's just ludicrous. How did this never come up before? Are you sure you are choosing the correct reason on the form? Excess contribution and not excess annual addition or excess deferral?

No. It should ONLY look at comp. In Relius there are two reports to help you out. Go to the 2011 plan year and run the "Top 20% for next year" report in the ADP testing module. That will show you who it considered when making the determination. Then got to 2012 and run either the "Highly compensated employees" report in the ADP testing module or the "HCE and Key Employee Detail" report in Report Writer (it's in the Miscellaneous tree). Either report will tell you WHY someone was considered an HCE (owner, comp, TPG, etc.) If, after careful consideration, you think it's wrong, you can always manually code someone as an NCHE.

I added something. Also, for a first-year participant, the TH might be more than the gateway, as the GW can be based on participation compensation and TH is based on full-year pay. So, someone might have to get more than the gateway even if they are not getting a PS.

Did I read it or did I dream it? I seem to recall that the first day of a plan year had to be an entry date. I don't remember where I think I got that from. Maybe it was part of an ASPPA-test-studying hallucination. If it's true, where can I find that language? If it's false, feel free to laugh and point...

Kathy, run the HCE/Key EE report in Report Writer (or the one from the ADP test module). It'll tell you there why each person is being considered an HCE. Well, why the system is considering them HCEs at any rate.

You can round any way you want, as long as it's consistent.

Kathy: Two independent parts to HCE determination here. 1) Compensation test. In the top 20% of comp? Then an HCE. If owner didn't make as much as the other two, he (or she) is not in this group. 2) Owner test. Own more than 5% directly or by attribution, and you're in this group. If you are in either one of these groups, you're an HCE. Remember, the TPG only modifies group # 1 and has no bearing on group #2.

Quick aside: if an 11-g type amendment was done for, say 2011, and the plan was taken out of prototype status. Would it get back that status for 2012 since the amendment is no longer effective?

Chip, I certainly do agree. We work with JH, but I haven't had an ACP failure in years, so I wouldn't know about their process re: the refunds.

Well, you don't add an amendment cross testing the plan. An 11-g amendment is to change the allocation conditions slightly in order to avoid a 401 or 410 failure. The correction still has to fit into the plan details. I think if the plan doc calls for a safe harbor discretionary allocation (such as pro rata), you could never do an 11-g amendment, because you'd never come to a point where failure COULD occur.

I don't think it's possible to have a non-safe harbor allocation in a standardized prototype. Is there? Doing an "11-g" would probably take it out of prototype status.

Top paid group doesn't only apply to the 401(k) plan. It applies to all plans of the employer.

But there is nothing saying they can re-amend and put in the clarification.

I think someone is mistaking "return of ERMAT" to be unvested money. That can be paid back tot he trustee, though I don't really see why that would happen. It should go tot he cash account.

The ERISA Outline Book is pretty unambiguous in its opinion that non-electing church plans ARE subject to ADP/ACP: (Chap 1A: Definitions--Church Plans Emphasis added

If his RMD is for $872, he should have $872 in taxable income. (unless there was some basis distributed, and since it wasn't mentioned, I'll assume there was none).