BG5150

It depends on the service agreement you have between you and the two TPA's as to who will fill out the Form 5500 (the Employer files it). I have filled out 5500's for plans that have been with us for 10, 11 months out of the year (for a higher fee, of course) and then moved to a new TPA/record keeper. Though most of the time, the new TPA/record keeper will complete the 5500 based on information it has and that provided by the prior custodian.

We sometimes use the Corbel Volume Submitter. The hardship section is one unto itself in the "Determination and Distribution of Benefits" chapter. It states that a "Participant" may take a hardship. However, "Participant" is defined as someone who (paraphrasing) is participating in the plan and has not become ineligible to participate any more. I take that as "no terminated people are 'participants'." In this case, I would say no hardship is allowed. Do you have access to the people who wrote your document? Can you ask them?

Do mine!

Here is an example: 2 HCE's each put in 10% of pay 5 NHCE's each put in 2% of pay HCE ADP = 10%, NHCE ADP = 2%; test fails. Employer makes a 3% NEC to only NHCE's. HCE ADP = 10%; NHCE ADP = 5%; test still fails. However, if the NEC satisfied the Safe Harbor requirements (100% vesting, notice timing, etc), then the plan is deemed to have passed the ADP test, even without looking at the numbers.

Matching on deferrals that would have happened could lead to a higher rate of match for HCE's I would think (how many NHCE's are putting away 16,500 early in the year?). My suggestion is to get the HCE's to take 16,500 (or whatever it will be next year), divide by the number of pay periods and make that their deferral each period. This way they get match every paycheck.

Why not just do one? Is there really much effort that goes into producing one? (For us, we use Relius Govn't Forms SAR and it spits one out in seconds.)

So you are saying it is okay - can you give me a reg stating such? Did you read your plan document? You said you saw it in someone else's. As for TAG's response, I have seen the ability to distribute rollover accounts at any time in prototypes, volume submitters and IDP's, all with determination letters. So I know it's allowable. Maybe the question was ambiguously worded.

How many years does this go back?

I don't even have any "friends."

I agree. There is a little drop-down menu when you mouse over someone's name. Their information can be in there. Signatures should be for witty and humorous quips and quotes. Like this:

If by "refers" you mean the plan definition, then yes W-2 includes a cash bonus. As long as that cash bonus is paid on a W2, that it. In a prior position, our bonuses were paid on 1099's. Why, I do not know.

Also, if the plan has less than 25 participants at BOY, and if Part II would be blank, you don't have to file one regardless of any distributions. (p. 9 of 2008 Instructions for Form 5500). I love these new small-small plan filing requirements, or lack thereof.

I have a plan where someone who has irrevocably waived her participation in the plan (and all other plans provided by the Employer). She has otherwise satisfied the eligibility and entry requirements for the plan. Is she considered a participant for testing and 5500 purposes? If so, why? It's not like she is temporarily declining to make a 401 deduction and may decide later to do so. She could not even if she wanted to...even if they terminate this plan and put in another a year from now.

Other functions can include: drafting loan agreements, benefit determinations (70.5, vesting), producing 1099's, plan document work (restatements, IDP's, amendments), plan design studies.

If it sounds too good to be true...

Rounding to hundredths: 60% is 0.60. 60.1% is 0.601. Rounding to hundredths nets 0.60.

I was kidding, hence the " " Is it possible to round the individual account balances to the nearest dollar and do your calculations with whole dollars? And the regs do say "60 percent" not "60.00 percent." Reading that very, very, very (did I say "very") liberally, it seems it's okay to round down. Again: Honestly, though, I think absent a successful amendment of some sort you are in a sucky position.

60.1%? Just round down!

Can an individual have a tax year that is not calendar year? I've never seen it, but is it possible?

Don't forget the gateway. In order to be able to cross-test the allocation, you must provide a gateway for the NHCE's. And, if an NHCE is benefiting in any way (eg SH or Top Heavy), then that NHCE is eligible for the gateway. So your rate would include the SH and the gateway plus any PS. (I'm assuming you are cross-testing using the average benefits test. If you are not, never mind about the gateway)

This sentence cracks me up.

I believe that coverage would be satisfied, because the SH is an employer contribution and you'd have 100% coverage as long as there are no excluded employees. And, I also believe that the rate group test would include both the SH and regular PS. But remember, you cannot impute disparity to the SH portion, if you are testing that way.

I don't see what the problem is for the two or three people. As long as they are participating at the time of the effective date of the new plan they should be okay. Who cares if they start participating on Oct 1 2009 or Oct 1 1999?

I would check the plan document. Some docs specify the compensation to use, but some allow you to test using any compensation that passes 414(s).

I thouhgt those DOL rules applied to depositing the contributions to the trust, not necessarily the participant's accounts. They were put in place to keep the ER from sitting on, and perhaps using for other purposes, the deferrals. I'm assuming all the money made it into the trust, but got put into the wrong accounts. Are the W2's correct for the shorted people? I would take out the money from the over-paid accounts with earnings (as you said). And I would pay into the shorted accounts the proper amount adjusted for earnings, if you can figure that out. If the contribution with earnings is more than what was taken out of the over-paid accounts, then the Employer will make up the difference (maybe recouping it from the payroll company or record-keeper if it was their fault).