BG5150

Bird, it comes from EPCRS (Sec. 6.06(3)): (bold and spacing are my emphasis)

Is the son a 5% owner? If so, I would say yes, becasue she would we an owner, too, by attribution.

The amendment was the Heart/WRERA, so it wasn't discretionary. The doc says that forfs can be used to pay for plan expenses. I don't see where it says the money cannot revert to the Employer for expenses already paid. The plan is the Corbel Volume Submitter.

Basically, someone paid our retainer back in December from company assets. In doing the 2010 analysis, I mentioned there's some forfeiture money. He wants to know if he can pay get paid back for that. Also, we did an amendment in December which he paid for from the company. Can that be reimbursed? All the invocies we are talking about are int he 4th quarter 2010. And would be paid from the forfeiture balance a/o 12/31/10.

As for the contracted employees: as long as you have a definitely definable class of people you want to exclude you can, as long as you are passing your coverage tests.

If a TH minimum indeed applies: NO. Use 415 Comp.

Were there more than 100 account balances on 1/1/2010?

If the SH contribution is based only on participation compensation, then it would not completely cover the Top Heavy, TH has to be based on 415 comp, which, if I remember correctly, doesn't allow for exclusion of pre-participation comp.

And, I would thinkthe testing would be ongoing, not just at the point of amendment since account balances will be ever-changing.

But QNEC's have to be done w/in 12 months of plan year end, so option one is out for prior-year tests. I believe just refund/1-to-1 method is the only way to go. Remember, you cannot omit otherwise excludables when considering the 1-to-1 QNEC. So if you excluded them the first time, you have to re-run with everyone in it, and your refunds will change.

Dave, please lock this thread

Give it to me?

I have a client that has paid a few invoices in 2010 related to valid plan expenses out of company money. The plan has some money in the forfeiture account that can be used to pay for plan expenses. Can the ER use that money to reimburse itself for the expenses? The money was in the forfeiture account at the time they wrote the checks.

I'm sure Mr. Scherf appreciates the posting of his e-mail address for all to see. And, thanks for posting that unrelated-to-the-topic at hand wall of text. Twice.

I don't know. I guess an agent came in and said, hey, we'll do your plan for $x which is 10% cheaper than the other guy.

I have a plan that allows for installment payments as a form of distribution. It says so right there in the SPD, too. However, the plan is "not priced to allow for installment distributions" at the asset carrier. Therefore, the carrier does not honor such requests. What recourse does the participant or employer have with the carrier? A benefit is offered in the plan, however, the asset carrier say, nuh-uh. Is it incumbent on the Employer to either change carriers or change pricing tiers with the current one to accommodate these types of distributions? Or amend the plan (going forward) to remove installments?

I would say yes, it's a problem. Plan says at least 3% and they told people it was going to be 3%. It sounds like the ER wants to give an extra 2% to avoid Top Heavy testing? But, if everyone is getting 3% Safe Harbor, it'll probably be enough for most of them to satisfy Top Heavy. (You may have a case where the SH is based on participation compensation, but the true up to 3% of full year comp will probably be less than the extra 2% across the board.) So why doesn't the ER just do the stated 3% SH and do a 2% PS on top?

As long as the plan says "at least" and the specific amount for the year is explicit in the Notice, I don't see anything wrong with it. The SH NEC is not like a SH match in that it has a cap.

Except on road courses, of course.

Whereas wanting to "educate" people about abusive tax dodges or illegal schemes or explaining the infield fly rule might be altruistic reasons for posting articles, to me, message boards are for just that: messages. Questions & Answers. Maybe some helpful information. But if that helpful information is going to take up half or more of my screen real estate, it doesn't belong on a message board. Once again, summarize and post a link. Even if posting entire articles were permitted, whose job would it be to verify the copyright holder?

Then the author should provide and summary and then a link to the full article. I don't see any purpose of posting full articles on a message board. Say what you want to say, and link to further clarification, expansion, opinion, etc.

I deal with several big asset carriers who hold my clients' plans' money. On some of their withdrawal forms for excess refunds (ADP, ACP, etc), there is only a Plan Administrator signature line. There is no Participant authorization needed. For some reason I'm not comfortable with that. I know that it's up to the PA to get the money removed from the plan timely. However, the taxation withholding on the distributions are voluntary. On the forms there are the normal choices for default tax, no tax or other tax that the PA can choose. Do you find it odd that the PA should be making those decisions? Or that the carriers would accept taxation decisions based on the PA's, rather than the particpant's, say-so? I know as we get closer to the deadlines, not having to get the participant's consent is a luxury, but something just doesn't sit right with me when distributions are processed with, perhaps, arbitrary tax withholding decisions. (This is all assuming that the PA doesn't have explicit instructions in writing from the participant already. I mean, c'mon, who has that?) What are your thoughts?

You can exclude pre-participation compensation when testing. (from 2008 ERISA Outline Book

The full allocation of $3,000 get made. The population that gets it is up to the Plan Administrator, and can be any of the four given in Appendix B. It seems like in your case, one of the latter two would be best.

But will reasonably-sized portions of an article be okay when given proper credit? Like, maybe a paragraph or two.