GMK

When uncertain about a legal matter, the fiduciary would get advice from the plan's ERISA attorney. Similarly, in this case, shouldn't the fiduciary seek advice from the plan's banking expert on the appropriateness of approving the loan?

After further review, I'm pretty sure this isn't about plan designs where Everybody, including every NHCE, gets the 100% or 25%. It's about plan designs where only the lowest paid of the NHCE's (and all of the HCE's) are eligible for a contribution, and the higher paid NHCE's get 0%, in order to maximize the benefit to the HCE's. This may explain how the design could favor HCE's. (Kinda like the income tax breaks at the ends of the income scale, no? ... except the IRS isn't required to worry about that sort of discrimination against higher-paid NHCE's.)

Maybe Example 7 on page 8 here: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-16-16.pdf and check the limits if it's a QACA.

"days" may mean government business days, which could push it well past 200 calendar days. I generally figured on 2 years for our ESOP document. If needed, there's this: https://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/Determination,-Opinion-and-Advisory-Letter-for-Retirement-Plans-Check-the-Status-of-Your-Letter

Several factors are involved, some of which depend on what the Plan document says. For example, the plan may allow/require a force out distribution if the account balance is $1000 or less, or in some cases $5000 or less. Assuming a larger balance, the options may depend on whether the participant died before or after the participant's Required Beginning Date (RBD). Briefly, as I understand it, if the participant died before the RBD, then the non-spouse beneficiary who does not take the distribution now has the option to use the life expectancy rule or the 5-year rule. Since the participant died in 2016, the beneficiary has to decide which rule applies by September 30, 2017. Under the life expectancy rule, the beneficiary begins taking distributions by December 31, 2017. Under the 5-year rule, the beneficiary can choose when and if to take a distribution for 5 years, but the entire balance must be distributed by December 31, 2021 (5 years after year of participant's death). If the participant died after the participant's RBD, then the participant's RMD for 2016 must be paid (to the beneficiary) in 2016. Then the non-spouse beneficiary who does not take the distribution has the option to use the life expectancy rule (with payments starting by December 31, 2017) and may also have the option to use the 5-year rule, but this will depend on whether the plan allows it. Check the Adoption Agreement to see if beneficiaries are given the option to use the 5-year rule when the participant dies after the RBD. Again, if the 5-year rule is an available option, the beneficiary has until September 30, 2017, to choose the life expectancy or 5-year rule. A couple references that might be useful: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/epchd603.pdf http://www.obliviousinvestor.com/inherited-ira-rules/

I'm just being a worry-wart if a case went to trial. I don't know of many employees who think they have an obligation to review their W-2's and pay stubs (although some review them). And I doubt if any think there's a deadline to file a request for a correction. I agree with rcline46 (post #3), but I have no idea what basis a judge might use to decide about the timing in the OP. For example, wrap documents for welfare plans and ERISA Rights summaries in handbooks and SPD's clearly notify participants of the deadlines for appealing a denied claim, but circuit courts have ruled that certain deadlines have to be specified in the individual denial letters as well or they don't apply.

^agreed

^agreed. Your BOY total is your total on January 1. It is 103, not 98, but you can continue to file the same as you did in the previous year, because you're not at 121 yet. You also have the option to file as a large plan if you really, really want to.

I wish we could shorten that timeframe to a number of days after reviewing a pay stub. ​Is there a reason employers/administrators cannot do either of these? (asking because I don't know.) In either case, the employer might avoid creating disgruntledness and possibly legal issues if the employer informs employees in advance of how the employer is treating employee acceptance of W-2's and if the employer informs employees of the deadline for employees to file a request for a correction. Kinda like deadlines needing to be listed in claim denial letters, maybe.

Presumably, the SPD does not list a 3% default deferral election either. (Just thinking about what might affect participant deferral decisions.)

Until the prototype and VS ESOP documents become available, we have to keep current on required amendments ... same as before, not? When they do become available, supposedly by 2017 or 2018, we will follow whatever procedure is then in place for adopting one. Are there other realistic options?

not that I disagree with Mike's interpretation, but where does it say "at least" in post #3, above? Is it unreasonable to interpret Condition 3 as saying for 'exactly' 6 months? - although this would still leave open the question of who is responsible to restart the deferrals.

My understanding is that it is does create an RMD for the year of termination, and the RMD amount, which was part of the rollover, is then not eligible for rollover. The participant asks the rollover receiving account to return the RMD amount to the participant, or (if I correctly recall early threads on this topic) if there is still enough remaining in the participant's plan account, it could be distributed to the participant in cash from the plan to cover the RMD for the year the participant terminated.

think UVa 85 - OU 82 ... unless there's something more than pride (meaning something like money) involved.

​True that. We were hoping no one would remind you of it, but now it'll probably be reposted or linked in May. There isn't enough Negra Modelo in the rerfrigerator to compensate for that joke, although I must admit to having retold it a time or two. My favorite shaggy dog story is about the depressed saxophone player in Paris, but I don't know if can be told in text without tunes. But, aha, here it is told in London (IMHO, it's better if you read Paris where it says London): http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Rec/rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz/2006-08/msg03492.html

​was it vehicular homicide? http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=3940

So much for a career in stand-up, Tom. Nice try though. Are you sure about the harps? I was taught that musically it was a time of sax and violins in Rome. In any case, it'd probably be best if you return to writing song lyrics ... you know, go with what you're good at.

add arctangent for kicks 3.1416

​happy special pi day rounded to 4 decimals 3 14 16 Scholars argue about whether last year or this year is the pi day of the century, but clearly today, rounded pi day, is the people's choice for pi day of the century, since it's far more common to find round pi than square pi. http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/pi-day-2016-extra-special/story?id=37630134

Is this the same question? If so, here are some comments. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php/topic/58702-hybrid-safe-harbor-design/

Here's a chart, if it helps: https://www.mhco.com/BreakingNews/ARemAmend_052714.html

1. My understanding is that it's all deferral and none is catch-up until you hit $18k or a plan-imposed deferral limit, so there's no way to recharacterize the 2015 contributions. Maybe someone on these boards knows of a way to do it, and that might explain the rationale behind deferral election forms that ask for both a deferral election and a separate election for what the form calls catch-up. Still don't understand that form format. 2. cheersmate - Any chance that you'd identify the payroll vendor, so we can avoid them in future searches. Thanks.

Maybe this helps: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php/topic/50728-wants-to-reverse-the-hardship-distribution/

Its' OK. When you're up for re-election, your only job duties are to promote party issues and get re-elected. But you knew that.

How about as a Health Oversight Activity, which the CMS program seems to be?