BG5150

Whether you keep out p/t rehires or "hygienists," you'd still have a coverage problem, no?

Yep. I've seen it done both ways: exclude only the owners and exclude all the HCEs except the owners (and their spouses )

Is refinancing available? Since the original loan is only about 8 months old, it could be refinanced for an additional $35,000 payable over 4 years & 4 mos--close to 5 years.

1) Right. It's highest balance in the past 12 months. 2) Does the plan allow for two (or more) loans outstanding at the same time? If so, from a participant cash-flow position, it would not make sense to pay the $12,000 now, because it would net only $23,000 in cash oh hand. But for future cash-flow, the loan repayments would be smaller, since there wouldn't be that first loan to repay.

So, everyone is right!

Did you ask Corbel about it? They have pretty good service re: their docs if I recall.

K2, I respectfully disagree. From EPCRS: Says the missed match is a QNEC also.

If anyone has access to the CCH Technical Answer Group, they have a spreadsheet that'll help. And one for control groups, too.

I thought the software update would fix the problem. Nope.

I see no problem with that, unless the plan document says that a separate election for bonus is not allowed. Some prototype adoption agreements have that question. I guess you could always amend it out, though.

What plan year are you talking about and we can figure it out. (Also, do you have any TPG excludables? Even removing one, you would be down to five people (27/5 = 5.4, rounds to 5).

No. There are two separate groups. If you are in one, you are an HCE. Top 20% has nothing to do with ownership. You list the employees, take out the excludables, forget about ownership(!), divide by five and draw a line. Everyone above the line and above the income threshold is an HCE for comp. For 28 eligible people, that would be MAXIMUM six (due to rounding). Ties are decided by the Employer and has to be consistent year to year. Again, ownership (or attributed ownership) plays no part in this test. Then you do the ownership test. Anyone who wasn't an HCE due to the top paid group calculation and is a 5% owner (by direct or attributed ownership) are HCE's, too. In your case, the owner and his kids are HCE's. Assuming the owner makes more than the HCE comp threshold, and the kids don't, you could have up to 5 more HCE's, depending on the earnings of the top six people FROM THE LOOK BACK YEAR. (Well, you may be right in that there could be 8 HCE's--owner, two kids, 5 more participants who made more than the limit in the previous year). And don't forget, that you can exclude some EMPLOYEES (not necessarily participants) from the top paid group count if: a) they are under 21, b) usually work less than 17.5 hours a week, c) usually work less than six months a year, d) those who work less than six months. (I think that's it, I always have to look it up) So you may have less than 28 people in the determination if there was anyone in any of those 5 categories.

Not commenting on the merits of the proposed scheme, but keep in mind that people who irrevocably waive out are included in coverage testing and includable and not benefiting.

Taken from another angle, you have to remember there is a two-part test to determine an HCE which are independent of each other. 1. Compensation test: Have compensation greater than the applicable dollar limit in the appropriate year, and you're an HCE. --OR-- if using the top paid group, be in the top 20% group and you're an HCE. 2. Ownership test: Be a 5% owner, you're an HCE; be a 5% owner by attribution and you're an HCE. Being in either group makes you an HCE.

I don't understand part of this. Who were the plaintiffs in this case? Just a few (disgruntled) participants? Or all of them? Was it just the plaintiffs who didn't get the notice or was it everyone?

It's working again now. however, whenever I click on Go to first unread, in this thread only so far, it brings me to my post of a few days ago, not the most recent. All the other threads I've tried it takes me to the bona fide first unread. This is no biggie, but the initial problem is a PITA when it occurs.

Is the balance over or under the "cashout" threshold of the plan?

It works again--ONCE--when I close my browser. I don't reset it or anything, just close, reopen.

You can amend at any time after the first filing (for the year) is made.

The form must be provided upon request from a participant whether or not its on the web. Is the distribution amount put on the SAR? Or is it just lumped in somewhere? (It's been a while since I actually read one of those things.)

I was working for a week. Now it's broke (for me) again.

Aren't EINs a matter of public record? There are several websites out there where you can obtain the information. So, I wouldn't be worried about the ER's EIN being out there.

I would check with the people running the class.

The ERISA Outline Book as a checklist section on Plan Terms, I believe.

I usually just use the lost earnings calculator for VFCP. http://askebsa.dol.gov/VFCPCalculator/WebCalculator.aspx