chc93

I agree. But for the ABPT, I thought there was only one ABPT. And the ABPT has to be run using the earliest eligibility. So immediate eligibility, in this case. Then use all salary deferrals, match, employer contributions, and compensation from the earliest eligibility date (immediate, in this case).

My thoughts... 1. yes, must be in 410b coverage 2. a, 2b. must be in 401a4 2c. doesn't matter if HCE or NHCE

We had a similar situation. Participant deferring 10%, terminated. When rehired, payroll kept the 10% deferral rate (I think they forgot to remove it)... but participant took a few paychecks before realizing that he didn't want deferrals after rehire but had 10% taken out. I think the participant also assumed his deferral rate would be 0% on rehire unless he asked for it again. I realize this is a single participant, and you're dealing with a very larger group. But don't rehires still have to sign something upon rehire, payroll has to be set up again, etc. Maybe at that time, the participant can be informed about his salary deferrals... whether he was deferring in the past or not. I would lean towards setting deferral rate to 0% on termination. Upon rehire, it would be up to the participant to elect again if desired. Just my thoughts... FWIW

I thought that after-tax contributions are part of 415 annual additions (100% of comp limit).

This question just came up in our office in the last few days. Consensus is that if each is in their own group, any allocation is acceptable as long as it passes 401a4. And a safe harbor integrated formula automatically satisfies 401a4. So no cross-testing needed. Only coverage test needed.

Yes, the 401k is discussed, but separate from the "company contribution" and associated "percentage". And we don't discuss the splitting of 401k and company contributions and tax implications.

Yes... thanks for clarifying.

This is how some CPA's view the employer contributions in discussions we have with them. In fact, when they say "what percentage is the contribution", while I think of percentage of compensation for the owner, they think of percentage of the total contribution paid to the plan and deducted.

Check out post #6... http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/49863-rmd-requirements-for-a-rehire/?hl=rmd+rehire#.VIZHEBY7fCV referencing the 2012 presentation on the IRS website. On Page 39, the IRS response ... ****************** If you’re still working and began taking RMDs but you’re no longer a 5% owner for 2012, is an RMD required for 2012? The answer is no. ****************** I think I read somewhere that this is a plan document issue.

Note that final regs 1.404(a)(4)-8(b)(1)(vi)(B) allows for the 5% test using 415 compensation over the portion of the plan year that the participant is eligible.

pookah... I agree with you. But again, as others have mentioned, there has to be a basis (usually compensation) for a contribution allocation while on leave. If I remember correctly, I was asked once if they could give a substantial bonus just before being deployed so that there will a basis for a "normal" contribution (no last day of work requirement).

But note that any missed contributions while on USERRA leave is only paid to the plan after return from deployment and return to employment within a specified number of days (based on length of deployment). So without return to employment within the specified time, I don't think a contribution is possible, even if desired. Seems like it would be like giving a contribution to someone who is not an employee. And as QDROphile says, there should be a basis for a contribution. If not an employee, there wouldn't be any basis.

I thought that unless the plan termination amendment creates a short plan year, the fact that the Form 5500 is filed for a "short plan year" doesn't create a short plan year. So if the amendment doesn't create a short plan year, you would still have the same 12-month plan year, just that the Form 5500 is reporting less than a 12 month period.

Would the Basic Plan Document have any additional descriptions on "upon death"....

Or... what I've seen is... 100% vesting on death or disability while employed.

The non-equity partners "can" do whatever they want. The problem now is that each non-equity partner can "select" his contribution level. If done "by himself", it can appear to be a CODA. If done by the pension plan administrative committee, it might "appear" OK. Which is Tom's reference to the IRS response of "we willl know abuse when we see it".

Yes... our sole-prop plans have both an EIN for the sole-prop and a TIN for the plan trust.

Maybe look at it this way. First, you allocate 5% of 6-month comp. Then check the TH 3% of full year comp. If less than 3% of full year comp, allocate additional amounts to get to 3% of full year comp. In this case, you have met both the 5% of 6-month comp gateway requirement, and the 3% of full year comp for TH. I don't think that the rate group increases to 5.5%. And the gateway requirement is still 5% of participation comp. In other words, TH is a separate determination from rate group testing (other than the full contribution including the additional amount for TH is tested)....

I thought "unreasonable compensation" was a spouse or child (or close relative) receiving $50,000 for the year but only works 5 hours in the year. Not a close relative receiving $15 per hour (which seems "reasonable").

1. IRS position is because those non-safe harbor (discretionary) contributions were not fully vested when *paid* to the plan. 2. In one situation we had years ago, the sponsor decided to fully vest all previous non-safe harbor (discretionary) match and not worry about it... don't have to keep vesting, no forfeitures to worry about. (This was a small plan, so no real issues.)

In my case, the distribution was made in January 2014 with 1099R will be for 2014. No distribution in 2013, no 1099R for 2013.

I must be missing something. If the 5500-SUP is for those filers who are not required to file electronically, how does that filer get an EFAST ACK code?

When we had this happen, the platform provider simply added this to "net gain" for the period, without any other information.

We also had a CPA argue that since the participant worked through Dec 31, 2013, the participant didn't retire in 2013, but retired in 2014. So 2014 was first distribution year, required beginning date was Apr 1, 2015. [edit] Also, while doing some research on this, apparently the code and regs (and the IRS) do not define "retiring".

We also use FTWilliam for 5500's, and agree with the comments above. Software is excellent, and support is even better. 8955-SSA and Schedule D information uploads into their software very easily using their templates. No problems at all.