BG5150

Side note: If the (soon-to-be) new owners did not do their due diligence, that's on them.

I agree with Tom. If you know the population, just put them all into a dummy plan, make them all active and code the HCEs properly. The have Relius do it.

Can't they liquidate the asset and take the market value adjustment?

File under the PN on 5558, then amend with correct PN right away?

What about a similar invoice? One dated three months after the one used for the first request.

Where does it say the participant must use the proceeds to offset the need?

Owner is only in his 50's

So, if there are/were no <100% vested distributions, and the plan is kept updated (and teh client continues to pay our fee), do we have any other concerns?

Can't be more than a year, though, right?

Much better now. Thanks!

At least the forums? I'm not a fan. :(

no one paid out at less than 100% vested.

No contributions made to profit sharing plan for at least 8 years. PS only plan. I guess the contributions are no longer substantial and recurring. So 100% vesting is probably triggered. Are there any other ramifications?

If the PTers came in with the 12 month requirement, then they definitely would have come in under the 3-month rule. Even with ETA's plan design, they would come in. Or am I missing something. Side note: you don't have to have automatic deferral in order to take advantage of the SH Match.

Yeah, but the bind you can get into is if the accrued to date method gives better results to the client. I had that very situation (though I do not think the previous outfit did the testing correctly). Their testing had the owners maxing out and the staff getting just the gateway. When I tested it without accrued to date, the staff was getting somewhere around 7%. We had to explain to the client the previous method of calculation wasn't something we could readily do. I eventually got it down to around 5 1/2% with component testing, but the client wasn't thrilled.

I don't think Relius does it. I went down that path (or tried to) a couple years back. Try Relius customer service. They are really good in my experiences with them.

News to me: Florida collects a "stamp tax" on 401(k) loans? How do you apply this? Is there a 1099 involved? Or other tax form? Is the amount reduce from the loan proceeds, or taken on top of the loan, like a fee? How is it remitted to the state? Form and check? Online? Your thought are valuable and appreciated.

They don't HAVE to do refunds. They can provide a QNEC to everyone in an mount enough to pass the test. However, in either case, you cannot test otherwise excludables separately.

And maybe think about switching platforms.

It was probably the payroll check tot he participant that was voided.

Even those who waive out are considered for coverage, though.

With the plan being done in-house, any other compliance issues? Were they running ADP and top heavy tests? Any 415 issues? 402(g)?

The RMD piece is taken first. The rest of the proceeds may be rolled over.

^ yep

A co-worker of mine once sent the wrong plan document to a client. It was a Profit Sharing only doc and the client's plan was supposed to be a 401(k) setup. We only asked for copies of the signature pages back and no one noticed that it was page 24 instead of 43 (who would notice that?). It didn't come to light until 3 years later when the client decided to move to a new r/k platform. The r/k asked for a copy of the plan document and the client sent theirs. You can imagine the confusion on all sides...