Lou S.

I'm not 100% sure but I think this is eligible under self correction via your plan amendment proposed in option 2. It seems to fall under several items the IRS lists as available for self corrections - 1. as a result of a corporate transactions 2. expanding coverage to an otherwise ineligible group of employees. But it is sometimes risky to do self-correction when it is something that can clearly be fixed with VCP using your option 2. Just galls you to pay for VCP if you can fix via SCP.

I'm not sure what the "proper" procedure is but I would think you don't get SH relief for the 1st plan year since you "effectively" don't have 3 months of deferrals and would be subject to ADP/ACP testing and TH minimums, if applicable. Perhaps someone else has been in this position before and can offer better info than I can.

October, November, December is 3 months right? Did no one signup until now or did they just get around to doing the enrollments now?

I agree with you. No audit for 2015.

401(a)(17) is limit in effect at start of the year. 415 is limit in effect at the end of the year. At least that's the way I've always learned it. Though I think you CAN get some different results if the Limitation year is defined differently than the Plan year.

I'm not aware of any grace period for delaying enrollment or not allowing deferrals. I think you have a reasonable administrative delay (changing providers) for delaying/suspending the deposits, until the accounts can be setup. One administrative issue might be those payrolls are going to the old provider, in which case I'd assume you would have to enroll/default those participants into the old program.

The portion that is tax free recovery of basis or qualified distribution is not subject to income withholding.

I am not aware of any exemption from the audit requirement for any qualified retirement plan covering more than 100 (120 if previously filing as small plan) participants at the beginning of the year. There are some rules for deferring one audit in the case of at least one short plan year (less than 7 months) where you defer the earlier audit, but the audit for both plan years has to be attached to the subsequent year filing.

I think it is on safe harbor 401(k) plans using the 3% non-elective contribution that you run into imputed disparity issues in the general test where you aren't allowed to use it.

I don't think the Plan is allowed to be put in a better position than if the mistake was not made. In this particular case it sounds like the size of the correction was calculated in error causing an "over correction", presumably by the brokerage house, the excess of which should be returned to the brokerage house. But honestly I'm not 100% sure on that, it's just an educated guess.

Good luck. Likely you will need an attorney who is versed in drafting QDROs to put the 1991 divorce settlement into terms the Plan will accept as a QDRO.

I'm pretty sure that unfunded* plans under 100 lives are not required to file Form 5500. I believe the DOL also has an exemption to the filing requirement for small plans if the only "funding" is through insurance contracts. Now if you have a funded plan trust, I believe you are required to required to file regardless of participant count. But welfare benefit plans are not my area of expertise. *plans that pay out of the general assets of the employer.

Have the Plan Administrator make a decision on how it will be handled and then treat all future participants the same way. Ideally incorporate the decision into the Plan's Administrative procedures or better yet formalize it with a Plan Amendment. (It is possible this is part of your new PPA document, I know it was added to ours). There are a number of acceptable alternatives that include - All participants will be treated in the class they are in on the 1st day of the plan year. All participants will be treated in the class they are in on the last day of the plan year. Participants will receive a "blended rate base pro-rata" on when the change occurs. Participants will get A% on compensation earned while in group A and B% on compensation while in group B. There may be other acceptable methods but I think the most important thing is establishing a rule an following it in a non-arbitrary manner.

Looks like a clear parent subsidiary relationship with S-Corp owning more than 80% of the LLC.

I usually ask to speak to the partner in charge and tell them it's not our job to train their interns and can you please have your underlings read the instructions so we don't have to bill the client for our time educating your employees. Though I usually use nicer language.

Jim I agree with you.

I'm going to assume you are talking about adding this condition for the next plan year and not the current plan year. But yes this sounds like a fairly standard cross tested design with the safe-harbor as a floor in your general test. If you want the HCEs to get more than 9% total allocation though, NHCEs are most likely going to need a larger contribution to pass gateway testing whether or not they work a 1000 hours.

Send them a letter telling them you will return the funds on the conditions that they indemnify you for any loss you should suffer from returning the funds as well as paying for any and all accounting fees associated with filing amended tax returns for the years in question and reimbursing you for any taxes the paid that the IRS fails to refund.

Although not something I experienced first hand, I understand in the "good old days" this was somewhat standard procedure for some plans to get a de facto extension of time to complete the audit. Under the computer age filing I don't know if it works anymore. FWIW, If it was my plan, I'd file with the "draft Audit" and file an amended return the day I got the "final Audit". But I'm not sure that's the formal advice I'd give a client.

Are you sure there weren't any residual dividends hit the accounts in March and got swept out?

What does the document say?

I am not a lawyer but the first thing I would do is send a joinder (is that the right word) notifying BOTH plans of a pending QDRO. Preferably BEFORE he files any retirement papers or make any elections with either pension plan.

There could be some good reasons for doing what is suggested, but it doesn't sound like any of those reasons would apply to you based on your original post. If it was me, I'd leave it where it is. disclaimer - this post is not meant to be construed as legal, tax or investment advice.

Yes it works fine. You simply have them enter on a the next future entry date if they do satisfy the 1,000 hour rule - you just need to draft the entry conditions correctly. The devil is in details of tracking those that do become eligible that the client assumed would never work 1,000 hours.

Do you have a benefit statement with the home address of an officer of the plan sponsor - if yes, I'd start there. Have you been paid for 2014? It is the Plan Administrator's legal responsibility to file the Form and get an independent audit if required. Under what authority could you as a service provider file the form yourself and would you want that responsibility/liability? Perhaps they could qualify under Orphan Plan rules but I think they are pretty specific.