Lou S.

Are you trying to eliminate SH 3% for 2013 for HCEs? Is so that would have had to have been in your maybe notice last year. If you are trying to do in for 2014 doesn't sound like a problem, assuming your prototype allows for it which I'd think most do.

I don't think so after the plan year following the transaction. Just because the shares are pledged as collateral doesn't mean she owns them. I think they are just security for the loan unless she she has an option to buy them. Now if the loan defaults and she receives stock in lieu of payment she would once again have ownership interest. But I am not an attorney.

Is there a Crystal Reports for dummies book?

I know of nothing prohibiting the elimination of automatic enrollment. Seems a simple plan amendment could address it though you might want to be clear whether if it applies only to new employess or removes the auto enrollment for folks who don't have any election.

It's not an either or proposition. They need to do both. Not really. There is nothing that prevents you from just filing late if you don't mind paying the IRS fine. Not sure why you'd choose to do that though when DFVC is pretty easy and much cheaper than any penalty the IRS will impose for late filing but I don't think DFVC is technically required.

Who is the executor of the fathers estate? Impress upon them the importance of taking resposibility for the corporation and its plan. Refer participants to the DOL if the executor is non-responsive or "too busy to deal with it". See the DOL website on orphaned plans for more information.

Yes. You are in subclause II, subclause I is the one before it as in IRC 416(i)(1)(B)(iii)(I)

The 3% safe-harbor can be made to another plan, even an ESOP as I understand it. I think there are some extra consideration you need to look at when the ESOP is leverages to make sure you are releasing at least 3% and that piece has to be 100% vested. You can use the contribution to satisfy T-H and if 3% is on full year 415 comp you already satisfy TH even if additional contrib is made. You just want the 401(k) to reference how T-H is being statisfied because you have multilple plans and the 401(k) needs to reference how it is compying with TH.

Before the last payroll of the plan year is processed since you need a plan in place before deferrals can be made. You almost always have to use prior year testing and limit HCE deferrals to 5% to pass ADP testing that first year.

Beyond the fiduciary question which may or may not be prudent, how does this payment option satisfy the QJSA rules?

Does the plan document allow for forfeitures to pay expenses? If so that might be an option to avoid the small balance problem if you reallocate small forfeiture account. Otherwise pretty much yeah, you make a contribution equal to the forfeitures to realloacte and reduce the employer contribution by the reallocated forfeitures. Net effect, no contribution check by the employer but allocate the forfeitures to participants under terms of the document.

I've seen it done both ways. I agree with you but I doubt you'll get anywhere with them. You are stuck with their rules or find another platform.

It is correctable under EPCRS but I don't reall if it is eligible for SCP or you need to use VCP but I think it was one of the items address in the IRS phone forum not to long ago. Either way if you are correcting via SCP or VCP you want to have the sponsor put n place porcedudes with ALL of those individual brokerage accounts that money can not leave with out written trustee approval, participants should not have authority to make withdrawals. One other possible option if this is recent, does the Plan allow for loans and can you convert the "impermissable distribution" into a "participant loan after the fact"?

I missed that he is not an employee of B. Now I'm no longer sure.

He is a key of B, B is a member of the ASG, therefore he is a key of the ASG.

Read the Plan document, that will tell you the basis for the allocation.

If they are legaly married in California (which now allows same sex marriage) and they offer benefits for opposite sex marriages but not same sex marriages I would think they would be opening themselves up to test case discrimination law suit but I am not a lawyer so take that for what it is worth.

Done it pleanty of times, never been an issue in my experience.

Is the son the executor? If yes, I'd tell the son he should find the time or you'll be happy to refer his father's participants to local DOL office. If some one else is the executor, I'd talk to them about talking over as Plan Administrator.

Been a while since I worked on any Davis-Bacon but I seem to recall that if it was treated as a QNEC in the document then it went into your ADP test (subject to the targeted QNEC retrictions that I believe are slightly more liberal for Davis-Bacon) but that you then could not use them in general test (except to the extent that they are in the ABT). But if you did not have them as QNEC for ADP in the document then you did include them in general test. So if you are a safe harbor 401(k) what whould the advantage of treating the D-B contribs as QNEC be?

I assume he means, 1099 income reported on a Schedule C seperate from the group practice and that his sole proprietorships is sponsoring the solo-K As long as there are no CG or ASG issues, sure he can have a solo-K for for his seperate business income but given his field I'd be worried about the potential ASG issues and get a legal opion before proceeding.

OK, let me re-phrase. Whatever system they are using to get paper forms into their computer system has some disconnect given the number of notices they send for plans that actually filed a 5558. And I don't think you can throw the letter in the junk mai, it does unfortuately require a response.

It's been this way since the disconnect between the paper filing of Form 5558 at one IRS loaction and the electronic filing of Form 5500 with the DOL at another location. It seems like they simply can't match all timely filed Form 5558s with properly filed 5500s durring the 2.5 month extension window. As this is an informational return with an automatic extension if you file the 5558, you'd think if you filed the 5500 with 5558 box checked the presumption from the IRS would be that you actually filed the very simple form but the IRS seems to have a problem properly logging out all the 5558s timely. Until the IRS goes t o electronic filing of form 5558 or decideds not to send out these letter, I'd expect this to be an issue for some percentage of plans each year. I agree it is a pain in the rear.

I think you have a 415 refund that is now eligible for correction under the most recent EPCRS procedure.

Why not? I'm not sure he'll return it but wouldn't sending him a package to his last known address in prison with return receipt requested satisfy the reasonable seach requirements? I'm guessing most you'll wind up forcing him out via IRA but we had a similar situaton where a guy in prison with a small balance actually signed the forms and had his girl friend cash the check after he endorsed it.