K2retire

And before hiring an attorney, make sure that he or she has experience with QDROs.

Not sure about the CG piece of the question. A corporation that moves to a new state needs to register to do business as a foreign corporation in the new state. I'm not familiar with all the states, but in Missouri it's a pretty simple process. They also need to make sure that they still have a registered agent to receive legal process in the original state.

Every Federal tax forms permits you to round to the nearest dollar. For 8 cents the nearest dollar is zero.

Since the PS is way beyond the deduction limit, I'd look for a way to make that be the source of the excess.

Probably they are the same.

So long as they do a true up at the end of the year they should be fine.

Some of us are anonymous because our employers require it for liability reasons, not because we are trying to hide anything.

If you do not apply for the automatic extension the due date is 3-15.

The provision we're looking to add says, "The Employer will make a Prevailing Wage Contribution on behalf of each Participant who performs services subject to the Service Contract Act, Davis-Bacon Act or similar Federal, State, or Municipal Prevailing Wage statutes. The Prevailing Wage Contributions shall be an amount equalt to the balance of the fringe benefit payment for health and welfare for each Participant (after deducting the cost of cash differential payments for the Participant) based on the hourly contribution rate for the Participant's employment classification, as designated on Schedule A as attached to this Adoptiona Agreement. The Prevailing Wage Contribution shall not be subject to any age or service requirements set forth in Question 15. nor to any service or employment conditions set forth in Question 32. and will be 100% Vested." and "...if the Prevailing Wage Contribution is a Qualified Nonelective Contribution as selected above, then it will offset any ADP test safe harbor contribution...." That sounds like the Prevailing Wage Contribution would reduce the SH. The unknown "someone" who told them about this initially indicated it would work the other way around.

Client has an existing 401(k) plan with an Enhanced Safe Harbor Match up to 4% of pay. They are about to begin a job that will require meeting the state's prevailing wage laws. "Someone" has told them they can apply the 4% match to that requirement. The document has an option (not marked) for a prevailing wage contribution in the profit sharing section, that says it can be used to offset the Safe Harbor contribution. Reading that section, it sounds to me as if it could be amended to accomplish what the client wants. My question is if such an amendment mid-year would jeopardize the plan's safe harbor status for the year.

How does the document allocate nonelective contributions?

Use the DVFC program. The cost is $750. The IRS late filing fees are substantially higher than $750 by the time you get to October 16, to say nothing of the DOL's fee which has the potential to exceed the DFVC fee on the first day the filing is late.

LLC with 5 plan participants: 2 members, 3 other employees. One member starts dating an employee. The employee is asked to resign. 20% of the plan participants have now left under circumstances that may not have been of her choosing. About a month later, the LLC member whose girlfriend was asked to leave, also leaves. We now have 40% of the plan participants terminating in the same year, related to the same event, but not at the same time. The bundled plan service provider says that both people left voluntarily, so no partial plan termination. If the employer wanted to treat this as a partial plan termination, how is it documented?

Years ago I heard really aggressive folks take the position that until a profit sharing contribution had been declared no one had accrued the right to a benefit. I'm pretty sure that won't fly anymore, but your 1,000 hours should be safe.

That is exactly where I was getting hung up!

I haven't worked on pooled plans since PPA, so I realize the rules may have changed. We always provided a complete list of the year end market value of investments to the plan sponsor with instructions to make it available to participants on request.

I'm getting more confused the more I look for this answer. An employer is considering closing a division. If they decide to proceed, they expect to pay several months of severance pay to the impacted employees. This pay would be within the same plan year as the termination, but potentially more than 2 1/2 months after the termination date. They have 2 questions: 1. Can they include the severance pay in plan compensation for purposes of deferrals and employer contributions? 2. If they include severance in plan compensation, are participants required to wait until after the severance has all been paid to take a distribution Where I'm getting hung up is the part of the definition that says pay that would have been paid if the employee had continued to work for the employer. Does that include pay at the employee's usual base pay rate even though they are not performing any service, or is it intended to only refer to things like accumulated vacation pay, sick pay and pending commissions?

How does the plan define compensation?

If the court order already includes a DRO and he gives her loan proceeds instead, I can see problems down the road. For example, what if she comes back years later and says she never got her DRO amout? The plan administrator's records would confirm that. The loan proceeds could be interpreted to be a gift rather than the satisfaction of the DRO.

Related question: when the amount of cash that the employer has on hand is not sufficient to cover both the tax and deferral withholdings on the reported income, may the employee give back some of the cash tips to cover the deferral amount? To further complicate matters, what do you do if the employee fails to turn in the cash to cover the deferrals that the employer deposited on their behalf?

The formula you describe is typical in union plans.

All suggestions make sense. The client, however, is very unhappy about the time involved with having to make corrections of less than $25 per participant.

The safest thing is to ask your plan administrator.

Unless a factor that has not been reported here or the Plan Document gives the Trustee veto power over document-authorized distributions, the Plan Administrator should not delay in getting the Trustee to sign or getting a different Trustee. Probably best to do both. True, but difficult if the plan administrator IS the trustee!

Plan sponsor uses a well known payroll service. Most participants have deferral elections for a percentage of pay. In 2010, the employees are asked to pay a portion of their dental insurance premiums that had been previously paid by the employer. Payroll service adjusts all participants' deferral percentage to be based on the pay after deducting the insurance premium rather than the gross pay. This is not noticed until 2011. We now have about 100 participants whose actual deferrals are less than the percentage on their elections by a relatively small amount. What is the fix?