PensionPro

We have a 0% MPPP where the owner and his spouse have rollover money. There are no other funds in the plan. The plan document should have been drafted to exclude all other employees but was not. The plan would like to file 5500-EZ rather than 5500-SF. Can the document be amended retroactively as of 1/1/14 excluding all other employees (without filing under (VCP)? Seems that it should be okay as no employee is losing their 0% "accrued benefit." Thanks!

Thanks Doghouse, very pertinent info, so glad you have an app or an audit for that!

If other employees become eligible and the plan can no longer file 5500-EZ, would the plan have to get fidelity bond coverage on non-qualifying assets or would they be exempt by virtue of the assets only being allocated to the owners' accounts? Thank you!

The reason they have the plan is the owners wanted to rollover illiquid assets from another plan and file 5500-EZ and not have to provide SARs etc. Good point on the rollover issue and to watch out for the minor issues.

We have a 0% MPP where the 2 owners were the only eligible employees and filing 5500-EZ. Few employees would become eligible in 2016. Can the plan be amended to only cover the 2 owners and exclude everyone else. I don't think it is a cutback and I don't think there is a coverage issue but I am looking for others' opinion. Also must such an amendment be prospective or can it be retroactive? Thanks!

The situation we encountered deals with the 100% owner of a Corp whose 401(k) deferrals were reported on Form W-2 and were deposited to the trust in October following the calendar/plan year. The deferrals are clearly deposited late. So do we pay the lost earnings to the trust, file Form 5330, etc. to correct this? Thank you everyone for the input!

Does it violate the Code and how is it fixed? Thanks.

We have a one participant 401(k) plan that files a Form 5500-EZ. Does the DOL's 7 business day safe harbor rule for depositing 401(k) deferrals apply in this case? What is the fix if they blow the deadline -- same as for other small plans? Thank you!

In reading the DOL's final rule on the subject, the safe harbor is satisfied "when contributions are deposited with the plan no later than the 7th business day ..." Nothing about allocating it to participant accounts, which may be a secondary issue but not the topic of discussion with the DOL investigator relating to PTs. Thanks for clarifying!

any opinions?

We have a client that remitted funds to the custodian on the 6th business day following pay date, the custodian received funds on the 7th business day, and the funds were allocated to participant accounts per investment election on the 8th business day. DOL investigator is claiming the payroll deposit is late because the investment allocation/earnings in the participant account began after the 7th business day. Our argument is that the funds were segregated from the employer's general assets by the 7th business day, and therefore there is no prohibited transaction. Is there a statutory basis for the DOL investigator's assertion that the deposit is late even though the funds were segregated timely from the employer's general assets? Thank you for any help!

IRM describes this requirement as "post-secondary school tuition and tuition-like fees (e.g., lab fees) for the next 12 months." I don't know what you mean by continuing education in this context but generally it would not seem to be related to tuition. In the absence of more detailed information I am inclined to think CE expenses do not qualify.

Thanks for all the helpful responses. My query related in part to Mr. Gulia's last paragraph whether practitioners are including a disclaimer if applicable stating that the communication is not providing accounting, tax, or legal advice. Excellent food for thought!

With the revised final regulations are most folks getting rid of the circular 230 disclaimer on e-mail and other communications or replacing it with a broader, more general disclaimer? Thanks!

Thanks for the response. The plans do not cover the same employees. Yes plan B is cross-tested and uses 415 comp.

We have two 401(k) PS plans that pass coverage separately. Employer wants to do straight 3% PS contribution in plan A. In Plan B employer wants to do 20% for HCEs and 5% for NHCEs using rate group testing. In doing the 401a4 test for Plan B: 1) how are the employees from plan A getting 3% treated: are they excluded from testing or included as not benefitting? 2) how is ABP determined: just including plan B employees or all employees? Thanks very much!

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/51112-exclusion-of-students-during-summer/ I meant to link to this post. hope this works.

Maybe this will help? http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/55447-student-employees/

where fees or charges to the plan are determined on the basis of account balances a per capita method of allocating such expenses among all participants would appear arbitrary. - from the fab cited in post # 2

Do the plans pass 410(b) if aggregated?

take time to complete this worksheet is my suggestion ira_deduction_worksheet_1040i.pdf

I used the yearbook once in a while and will miss it. ASPPA reminds me of the airlines that frequently cut services, increase fees, and call it enhancements! But that's just me.

Is there a cite for this? Also why can the CPA not file the tax return and extension on the same day?

Assuming you are only talking about employee elective deferrals?

The IRS has clarified that UA applies to each common law entity separately rather than grouping controlled groups together. However you do consider controlled groups for other purposes such as 415(c ), 401(a)(9), HCE determination, 15-year catch-up.