BG5150

And the loan is still an asset of the plan. If the guy had a $100,000 account and took a $50,000 loan, the account is still valued at $100,000.

If we are doing the daily record-keeping of the funds, we send the electronic download of the fund positions at liquidation to the new r/k; we are not going to make them do that manually. We charge for that, it is part of our "de-conversion" fee. However, if the assets are at a brokerage account or another fund house, we don't provide that information, it is up to client to get it to the new TPA. If the new TPA wants things the client should have--documents, allocations, testing packages, 5500's--I can, and often do, charge for the duplication and transmission of those items.

Tell the receiving institution that the full $20,000 was not the eligible amount of the rollover. Explicit participant instructions were for it to be only $15,000. Taking the money out of the plan would not be a distribution, but a return of funds. Whomever processed the original distribution incorrectly should be on the hook for any losses or processing costs of the correction. just my $0.02

Until you get a letter from the DOL, I believe DFVCP is still in effect.

Yes. As Bo Derek was in "10," so now is this topic: hot.

What does it cost to re-run and ADP test if you change two or three compensations? Nothing. But we charge for that work. What does it cost to change some entries on the Schedule I if you got incorrect data? Not much, but we charge for it. How much does it cost to draft a Loan Note & Security Agreement? Not much, but we charge for it. We charge (sometimes) for copying material that the Employer should have because: 1) it takes my time away from clients who are paying us to do my job; 2) the support staff here has to take time out of their day to scan/copy/mail things and not support the administrators (who are supporting the paying clients) and not support the internal business to which they need to attend. Many times, clients leave, not becasue they are unhappy with our services, but for the promises of (to borrow a NASA catchphrase) "better, cheaper, faster" (though it usually is none of those). Keeping in that mentality, the former clients believe it will be "better, cheaper, faster" for them to just ask us for the material. I normally do not charge for administrative reports (census, distributions, contributions), or even financial data (mutual fund positions, earnigs statements, etc). But I draw the line at having to (or have the support staff do) scan or copy stuff liek plan documents, 3 or 4 years of ADP testing or profit sharing allocations. I know very well the old business adage of: give good service and people will tell 3 or 4 other people, but give bad service and people will tell 7 or 8 other people. And I do a very good job, I think, of preserving my firm's reputation among my current and former clients. But, I also refuse to be taken advantage of.

I would think that she could stop them as long as the original distribution scheme was not a series of substantially equal payments determined on the life expectancy of the client (we used to call that a SEPDOLEC in my old job).

So the magic number is 10 posts to make something "hot"?

Some threads have a blue folder on the left and some have a red one. The legend says that the red ones are "Hot Topics." What makes a topic "hot"? I thought it was views and/or responses, but I saw a red one with 9 responses and 129 views, but a thread with a blue folder had 7 responses and 152 views.

What are the procedures for regular distributions from the plan? Even if they are not required, I would think it would make sense for the PA to sign off on the hardship, because it is the PA who should determine if the h'ship is valid.

Is the profit sharing less than 3% of compensation? And don't forget, the SH match counts toward the top heavy minimum.

However, though. There is nothing to say you can't impose a reasonable copying and transmission fees if you are sending stuff the ER should have to another organization.

There WAS an extension granted, but it's probably not the one you were looking for. I got my hopes up until I read a little further into the announcement. IRS announcement: IRS Notice 2009-97 and Corbel's summary: Corbel summary

I think I found my answer: From Form 5307 Instructions: Specific Instructions Line 3f. If you do not have a copy of the latest determination letter, or if no determination letter has ever been received by the employer, submit copies of the initial plan (or adoption agreement along with the appropriate opinion or advisory letter), or the latest plan (or adoption agreement along with the appropriate opinion or advisory letter), and any subsequent amendments and/or restatements.

Next step: amend the plan to be a "wait-and-see" safe harbor. Sometimes called "conditional."

No one?

Truth be told, the clients should have all that stuff. TPA's are not offsite storage of plan-related documents and reports.

I've never thought of a plan that is failing the test, but there are no refunds due to re-characterizing some as catch up, as "passing." The test fails, but there is no corrective action needed.

It might be time to get an ERISA attorney involved.

For the plansI am submitting for determination letters for the EGTRRA restatements, how far back is the IRS looking for documentation? For plans that have a GUST-related DL, I understand it will stop there. But we have a bunch of plans that were on a GUST prototype, and most only have the opinion letter. (And many are on Non-Standardized docs.) We are now putting them on a VS and want the DL. I seem to remember the folks on the IRS panel at the ASPPA conference webcast saying they are only looking back to GUST docs, and that a plan would only need the opinion letter (and not the DL) because that was part of the reason to have opinion letters in the first place. I know that those types of events are not the official IRS stance, but has there been any other guidance on the issue?

...but probably create problems we couldn't ever dream about before...

The DRO may say the ex is due money from the plan, however, the order cannot be qualified. Therefore, I would think, the ex is NOT entitled to anything from the plan, and taking a loan from the plan to pay the ex would be a side deal between the two, not addressed in the DRO.

Is a loan a good option? What if the participant takes a $20,000 loan and pays the proceeds the ex. Then, three months later, the participant gets downsized? Now the outstanding loan amount is taxable to the participant. Talk about rubbing salt in the wound: paying the taxes on money you pay the ex! (On a side note, what would be the taxation on the money paid to the ex? There are no tax forms generated for a loan.)

For plan purposes or the person's purposes?

If a person who made more than the HCE limit (and is not a 5% owner) is eliminated from the HCE group due to the top paid group election, he or she is then tested as an NCHE; he or she is not removed from the test. A quick example: (H = HCE, N = NHCE) ADP test 1: H1: 10% H2: 8% H3: 0% HCE avg: 6% N1: 4% N2: 4% N3: 4% NHCE avg: 4%; test passes ADP test 2: say H3 is not in top 20%, test becomes: H1: 10% H2: 8% HCE avg: 9% N1: 4% N2: 4% N3: 4% H3: 0% NCHE avg: 3% test fails So, here you can see where a top paid group election would not be beneficial. But note, that H3 gets moved from the HCE group to the NHCE group; H3 is not removed from the test altogether.