K2retire

The issue is do they perform any work for the company.

Does the plan also have a cross tested profit sharing contribution? We often excluded HCEs from SHNE contributions to give more flexibility in calculating the profit sharing contributions.

IMHO, not a snowball's chance ..... Agreed. Remember they are far more interested in protecting participants than employers.

All of these are valid concerns, but the one who doesn't want anyone else's name on his plan -- but delegates signing the return makes no sense to me!

We've been using the export to xml option on all of our audit plans this week since we started getting errors on Web client. It is fast and easy.

We've had an incident with Relius since Monday -- no response yet. Today we started getting e-mails from them saying there was a problem with the attachments and we need to retrieve the filing and republish it.

For the past 2 days we have been exporting XML files from Relius to EFAST because every form with an attachment has not published to Web client correctly.

At my first TPA job I was told that if a plan was NOT top heavy, then we were doing something wrong. In the small plan world top heavy is almost inevitable if there is any turnover among the non-keys.

Ideally, we would always have accurate data. But realistically (especially if the employer is small enough that the don't have a full time HR person) what Austin describes happens regularly. The scarier example is the client who doesn't bother to tell us about the new people, because "they don't want to participate anyway" when they really mean that the newly eligible participant decided not to defer at this time.

The 5500 can legitimately be filed on a cash basis, without the need to report a receivable. Of course, that won't match the valuation, but it takes care of the penalty of perjury issue.

But you may also need to accelerate adoption of some mandatory amendments whose remdial amendment period have not yet passed.

I am include to agree with TPAman, although I'm sure there are exceptions. I once had a case of a union MPPP. The union contract changed the benefit, but nobody thought to amend the plan. The corporate attorney who was the plan trustee and the ERISA attorney ultimately decided that the change could not occur until the plan was amended.

Agreed. We've seen acknowledgement turnaround times go from a few minutes to about 24 hours this week. Not sure if that is a DOL issue or a Relius issue, but either way it is scary.

The government knows that those plans have not been required to file before. What would be the harm in reporting distributions for which no balance was previously reported?

I'm looking for the "like" button on that one! We've had the forms all prepared for a long time. We still have about 7% of our clients who have not submitted them. A large percentage of them have either moved to another service provider (who may have done the filing for them) or gone out of business.

Frequently when an individual receives both W-2 and 1099 income from a corporation that they own it is to avoid paying Social Security taxes on part of the income by structuring part of the payments as dividends (that show up on the 1099). Dividend income is not included in "all other payments to an employee in the course of the Emloyer's trade or business, for which the Employer must furnish the Employee a written statement under code section 6041, 6051 and 6052." However, if the 1099 is flowing to a Schedule C, it could be included in that definition.

My 28th wedding anniversary.

The term "junior partner" implies that he might have some ownership in the partnership, although the percentages stated seem to contradict that. The answer to that question can also impact the answer.

You are right to assume it will be more difficult this time. The last time I changed jobs (4 1/2 years ago) I got an interview nearly every place I sent a resume. The only offers I got were places where I was personally acquainted with someone already working there. That will be tricky when you're relocating.

The plan is not an asset of the corporation. It is a separate legal entity for the sole benefit of the participants.

That's one of the reasons most documents allow you to force people out.

Because the sole proprietor is the same person, I think it is going to be difficult to show that he (as plan sponsor) is not the same person as the one who has the other business.

If you terminate a 401(k) plan, in many cases the IRS will not permit the employer to start a new one until 12 months after the final distribution from the old one.

Our system requires the employer to tell us the payroll date (which includes the year). If no date is entered, it defaults to the current date, which may be the source of your problem. Ask your TPS how you are supposed to do this -- it is a common occurance so they should have a precedure.

Am I the only one wonder what the point of this legislation is if you can't convert before age 59 1/2? Isn't the conventional wisdom that a Roth conversion benefits younger people most?