GMK

I think you got it right. The death of a participant doesn't change the definition of compensation unless the Plan Document says it does, and deferral elections live on unless the Plan Doc says they do not. (What is the employer trying to do, save a little match money? Shees.)

I found this useful (on pages 6 and 7 of the pdf): http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p6388.pdf

Auto enrollment is easy and it boosts participation. A safe harbor match could take care of other issues that I sense might be in play.

Send them a letter requesting the paperwork, anyway, and copy it to a top level MassMutual person or two. And send a Fax every week or two with the same request and referencing the letter and the previous Faxes. We had to do this a while back to get Schedule A information from a 'too big to reply' firm. Eventually they responded. And if they don't respond, send copies of your correspondence to the feds and ask for their help.

Not that I've seen in the bulletins, advisory notices, etc. that we receive. Haven't looked further. We just followed orders and notified participants.

Employers can e-verify an employee unless she/he has been in continuous employment since before November 7, 1986: http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=6700787476728210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=4a1e787476728210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD Select who to e-verify on a non-discriminating basis. And it's not just a future IRS problem. The employer is responsible for determining that the persons they hire are authorized to work in the U.S.A. Learning that employees did not provide a SSN or provided an allegedly bogus one is not something an employer should ignore lightly.

austin - cudos for trying to create a reasonable SPD. I have yet to see a computer-generated SPD that comes close to providing "accurate, but easily understandable information about the Plan." I'm not a fan of statements like "If the Plan provides, then ..." or "If allowed by the Plan, ..." in a document that is supposed to inform participants about what is in the plan. I cringe when I see terms like "Notwithstanding the foregoing" in an SPD, like I could find a participant who knows what that means. And explaining plan benefits solely by reference to a Code section is like having speed limit signs that read, "Speed limits on this street are in accordance with local ordinance 342.551(b)." Accurate, but useless. The worst is when the computer generates information that is flat-out wrong, like with your vesting schedule, and out in left field information about what happens if you don't make elections when you are eligible or the cash-out limits or when balances are payable and the like. (end of rant ... yes, I do feel a little better, and thanks again.)

I agree, David. I thought about saying that, too, but I figured mentioning an I-9 will cause enough concern, where appropriate.

Maybe plan sponsor A and plan sponsor B could use the USCIS E-Verify system to sort this out ... might be worth a try. All they need is the information from the form I-9 the employee provided when hired.

Don't know if it will help, but try the left-right slider on the spread sheet to see the more recent columns.

Yes, of course. But this is a little bit of an apples and oranges thing. Selecting or changing funds is a decision for long term results, not a process of jumping in today to get an extra 0.6% return from the latest hot fund this year. Fund selection is also based in part on the needs and desires of particular mix of participants in the plan. You don't decide whether or when to change funds based on how much it costs to send the notice (the tail wagging the dog). But if it generally doesn't matter in the long term, then time your doing of things to minimize plan costs.

I believe it's that the 10% penalty does not apply if you separate from service if you reach at least age 55 in the year of the separation. edit: 12AX7 beat me to the post, and with a cite.

I've seen this in deferral election forms that ask for separate elections for deferral and catch-up. I guess this might be appropriate where people specify dollar amounts ... maybe, but for percentage elections, how do you figure out what percentages to list? And in either case, what's the point? It ain't catch-up until you defer the applicable limit, and then it is (subject to plan rules).

a previous discussion: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/51996-rmds-and-more-than-5-owners/

Do not overlook the potential hassle and time-wasting this can have on 5500 reporting, especially if you are dealing with a firm that is too big to fail, which means they are too big to answer your question that you faxed repeatedly month after month, a level of disregard repeated in several different years...grumble, grumble, grumble...until one day you find a way to get rid of those investments in your plan, and you smile again. Just saying. I wouldn't wish such treatment on anyone. Thanks for letting me vent.

You may have gotten technical advice about your cell phone contract from him. Yes, it was a lot funny.

I agree. If you're concerned whether the plan allows participants to take a distribution before the actual date they turn 70-1/2, you can check the plan document to confirm that it talks about a Distribution Calendar Year (or some such name). The first Distribution Calendar Year will be the first year for which an RMD is required (the year the participant turns age 70-1/2).

Absolutely! And the purple gelatin makes your purple cape flap, too ... or it used to did.

One way to look at is that when the employee left work on 12/31/2012 (and headed off to a very happy new year party), she/he was at that time no longer an employee of the company. The person had cut the ties to the company during the current year and did not have to wait until the new year to be retired.

This thread says that the plan document holds the key (see post 6): http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/52611-continuing-401k-deferrals-while-using-vacation-prior-to-actual-dot The plan document will say when a participant is no longer eligible, for example, when the participant moves from an eligible class to an ineligible class of employees. Presumably, your client will say that those who do not work 1000 hours are in an ineligible class, but the plan document probably doesn't say that. Once a participant, always a participant.

Glad to see your stick back on the ice, Sieve. I was concerned that the lockout checked you out of these boards (a net loss for us).

BG, we've noticed the change in your byline (or whatever it's called) under your postings. Just curious, did you hear a stupid question or simply change things up to keep it interesting?

It's not about the money. It's about the fiduciary responsibility of the plan administrator to operate the plan according to the plan doc and the law, including not giving a participant's benefits to persons "identified" as beneficiaries by someone other than the participant and without the consent of the participant. The web site data entry with notices and warnings can work just fine for the good guys and gals, but how does the plan administrator know that someone didn't steal the login information and make the beneficiary designations contrary to the wishes of the participant. Just assuming that whoever had the login information has the authority to designate beneficiaries doesn't cut it for me. Paperless data acquisition and filing are great, but in this case it is administratively easier (for me, at least) to simply get the signed and dated paper form from the participant than it would be to set up a data cross referencing system sufficient to guarantee that all the bad guys are always foiled.

You could gather the information on-line, but I'd recommend printing the form (whenever new information is entered) and having the participant sign and date it. Years from now, I'd prefer be able to show the court a signed and dated document rather than trying to explain how I know that there is no question that the information some unknown person entered on-line does in fact reflect the wishes of the participant. But maybe that's just me.

A previous discussion of this topic (can't find it right now) suggested putting a statement on the deferral election form to notify participants that other deductions take precedence over deferrals, just so people know that 100% isn't gonna be 100%. Seems like a good idea to us.