BG5150

Is there a TRUE penalty for not filing the form in this case? Other than there would be interest upon the interest? Has anyone seen a client get into trouble for not filing that $3 5330?

This is a large, national firm's Mass-submitter Pre-approved document.

In the plan document we are working with, the vesting schedule reads (in part): If someone has 2 years of vesting service, where do they fall on the schedule? For (2), they have more than 1 year but not less than 2, so both conditions are not met. For (3), they do not have more than 2 years but they do have less than 3. Again, both conditions are not met. (The previous document was much clearer: 0% at 1 but less than 2 [YOS] 30% at 2 but less than 3 60% at 3 but less than 4)

Would say VCP, too.

Related rollovers ARE counted. Unrelated rollovers ARE NOT counted. How did they do it last year? (Or were the rollovers this year?)

QACAs have their own match schedule, deferral escalation rules, vesting requirements. (Though I think the match is immediately vested as opposed to QACA NEC which can be 2-yr cliff)

It does not. There's not even a plan termination question on the form like there is on the 5500 I/H

What does the plan say about military leave?

If it's an S-Corp, the shareholder should (must?) be getting a W2 also? If they provided services for the company?

One of my first thoughts was the equivalencies that are written into many plans, especially in the case where hours are not explicitly counted. 10 hrs/day, 45/week, 190 hrs/mo. Is that subject to facts & circumstance at all? Would it look discriminatory if you gave a partner credit for 1,000 hours if it can be shown he or she really did not participate in the business while convalescing? Would an IRS auditor come in and say: "show my that Priscilla was actively engaged enough to be credited with service even while she was out"? The gist of it is that a participant gets the equivalent hours if they are paid for any hours in the relevant period. That means they would need to have worked at least an hour for 100 different days, or one day during 23 separate weeks or one day during at least 6 separate months (depending on the method chosen in the doc.) So, would the company have to show that the partner did indeed render services the appropriate amount of days, weeks, months?

I design all my 3% Sh plans as new comp, no requirements for allocation and exclude HCE from the SH. Offers lowest cost and greatest flexibility. And vesting on all the the HCE contributions.

Only if you are using a new comparability (with everyone in their own group) style of PS allocation. If they are using a design based safe harbor PS, then you lose that flexibility as you cannot pick and choose who you are going include or not include.

11-g is out. One of the requirements is non-discrimination.

I agree. make sure that catch-ups are allowed in the plan specifications (or whatever its called in your program). Are you using an in-house program, or a commercial one? If the latter, contact their support and they should be able to set you straight.

Wait. How was the correction done? What is an 'overfunded' deferral? Over 402(g)? Or did the employer double up the deposit or something?

Do they do anything else? Like check the appropriateness of the contributions? make the employer certify they have no other employees, or that those employees do not qualify for the plan? Keep the documents up to date?

I've been reading that for years now, ever since the disclosure regs were being discussed. Does anyone have first-hand knowledge where the DOL actually took a fiduciary to task over this issue?

For now. The long time/part time employee rules are fast-a-comin'...

I wouldn't. I don't think Overtime, bonuses, commissions would be considered "subsidies. I think "Base compensation" or "Base Pay" is good enough, as long as it's calculated the same way for everyone.

As long as THE CLIENT has Base Comp defined...

A more "definitive authority"? ERISA is THE definitive legislation regarding qualified plans...

I'm going to start adding this to all my correspondence. Seems good enough for our Trust Agreements: Whenever appropriate, words used in the singular shall include the plural, and the masculine gender shall include the feminine gender and vice versa.

By "limited trustee" do you mean they have control over the investments in the account? That discretion would not include the decision to not accept contributions, IMHO. All of the accounts should be titled under the Trust ID as FBO the participant.

You do not need to be failing anything to do an 11-g amendment. So why not just do that? Amendment: for plan year ended 2021, participants A, B, C, & D will have the service requirement for match (and/or PS) waived for that year only.

I think you misread the first post. It's not the plan sponsor who doesn't want the account, but an employee/participant.