K2retire

Why would you not pay the legal guardian of the 8 year old instead?

Thanks for the tip -- I was looking for this also.

What does the document say? Some have the limits to avoid the ACP test written in, others do not.

The argument I've heard for not including the preparer information is that doing so will give auditors information about possible audit targets if they have found problems with another client of the same preparer.

If the plan is not safe harbor, they don't have to cap the match at all. That would solve the problem, although it is likely to increase the total contribution.

If the rollover is not from a related employer, it is not used in the top heavy test.

Does the MPP have any allocation conditions to receive the contribution? If so, has anyone met them at the time of the proposed amendment?

The record keeper/custodian is asking for the participant's signature. I'm going to see if I can get them to process it without it.

We are the TPA of a large 401(k) plan. One of the former employees has ignored all communication about his RMDs for the past several years. Mail is not being returned and his phone is still in operation with an answering machine message that gives no clues. Because the employer has not been able to reach him by phone, nor had any other response, they do not know if he's disabled (perhaps senile), deceased, doesn't understand that a 401(k) plan cannot be aggregated with IRAs for RMDs, or is just stubborn. I'm thinking of having the employer instruct the record keeper to process the distribution without the participant's signature. I'd appreciate any feedback about why this should or should not be done.

I can't speak to the mapping, because I moved from Relius to FT William by virtue of changing jobs. Here are a few observations about the differences that I've observed. For the most part, they are neither good not bad -- just different. FT William does not have an equivalent to the Relius "build" function. As soon as you change a check box and save it, the documents will reflect that change when printed. The document is also automatically updated for any global changes that are made to the program. So if you print a new copy, it may not match the version that the client signed. There is a history feature in FT William that shows you all changes (including printing) that have been made to a document with date and name of the user who made the change. The FT William adoption agreement does not specify how forfeitures are to be used, although the base plan document requires them to be used in the year of the forfeiture. The FT William adoption agreement allows the plan sponsor to elect each year if they will do a match true-up rather than being hard wired into the document. The FT William adoption agreement spells out the frequency that participants are allowed to make deferral election changes. The Joinder Agreement that FT William uses for participating employers is considered to be a separate document within the program. It does not automatically print with the adoption agreement. And, of course, nothing in the adoption agreement appears on the page or in the order that you're used to with Relius.

Could the RMD be satisfied by distributing 100% of the partnership interest to him?

If the additional amount is optional, how do you satisfy the notice requirement?

What does their buy out agreement say?

As of the valuation date of February 28, 2011 she was entitled to a specific dollar amount. Based on the question coming nearly 2 years later, I'm guessing the segregation has not yet happened. Fidelity apparently wants to adjust the dollar amount for earnings since then, and you do not. If the funds had been paid to her on February 28, 2011 she would have gotten the earnings. Why do you believe it should be any different now?

"LIKE"

Unless one of the plans is a 457 plan.

The match, however, is still a match.

That sounds like the option with the least liability risk for you.

Since he's an HCE, coverage won't be a problem.

Thank you both. That actually brings up a new question. The plan is not a dual qualified plan at this point. Someone has been assuming that so long as the owner doesn't defer, that takes care of the problem. (Not sure if that someone was the client, their prior TPA, their CPA or someone else.) But since he is technically eligible for the plan, whether he defers or not, do we need to either become dual qualified or amend the plan to exclude him?

I'm working with a takeover client whose understanding of their existing plan provisions is consistently proving to be incorrect. Among other things, the HR director told us that it was not a safe harbor plan, and that the owner could not defer. The document clearly shows that it has a basic safe harbor match. Further discussion with the HR director brought up the fact that, for tax purposes, the business owner is a resident of Puerto Rico. He maintains homes in both Kansas and Puerto Rico and works part of the year from each location, but his primary residence is Puerto Rico. I know there are a number of different rules about Puerto Rico plans, but I'm having a hard time finding information about US plans covering Puerto Rico residents. Other than the lower deferral limit, can anyone point me to information that I need for this situation? Does the work done while in Puerto Rico need to be treated differently than the work in Kansas, or is it strictly based on where the participant files their taxes?

Further to MoJo's point -- many employers will tell you they "terminated" a plan and forced everyone to roll to their "new" plan when all they did was change investment providers in their existing, ongoing plan.

Did you keep a copy of what you signed?

It is listed on the SAR.

I am not qualified to give investment advice. But I can tell you that there is no one answer that is right for everyone. One theory suggests that investing the entire amount as soon as possible give your money the maximum time in the market to grow. Another suggests that dollar cost averaging over time is more lucrative. Predicting which will be the more lucrative choice in 2013, based on the recent market volatility, would require a very accurate crystal ball.