Lou S.

www.irs.gov type in EPCRS in their search box

I assume you didn't give out the "maybe" notice? I don't know if there is anything on directly point (maybe someone who has delt with it will chime in) but it would certainly be an aggresive position to give out a new notice this week and amend out of SHNE for 2013 after handing out a yes notice.

It depends on why the 6 employees are "missing". I've seen it before where some employees who were in the top paid group terminated before the end of the prior plan year and had no comp in the testing year. In that case your test may actually be correct as is.

Thanks, that seems to be a reasonable approach that is not a particularly an undue burden.

I'm sure this has been covered but apparently my search skills have failed because I couldn't find anything in the many threads referencing this topic. We try to strongly discourage principal residence loans but if a client is instant, what documention must a Plan Administrator get to certify that it is really for the acqusition of the participant's principal residence? Is a statement under penalty of perjury from the particiant acceptable? An "offer sheet" on the house? Evidence they have entered escrow? Do you have to have to get a copy of the title afterwards and evidence they moved in? Someting in-between the extremes? Curious what other folks do on this. Didn't see anything in the code or regs that was on point but if I missed it, a citation would be appreciated.

Totally agree with this. I'd probably use a restatement date of now with a plan effective date back to the original effective date of the plan. Even though it is a 1 man plan, he just needs to make sure there are no prohibited cutbacks going from one doc to the other. Doesn't sound like an issue since they seem to beswitching to get more options, namely ROTH ability.

Company A is owned 40% Father & 60% son#1, 0% son #2. Son #1 & son #21 both over age 21. Company A sponsors a 401(k) plan Company A is disloving. The next day - 2 new companies are created Company B owned 98% son #1 and 2% father Company C owned 98% son #2 and 2 % father. All the employees from Company A will be hired by either Company B or Company C in substanially the same jobs they had at Company A. Are A & B a controlled group even though they technically do not exist at the same time? Can B takeover sponsorship of the 401(k) and continue the plan or do they need a new one with plan A requiring termination? Can C adopt the plan? If they do, assuming no change in plan provisions or coverage of the plan other than sponsorship change, can the group be tested together for coverage and discrimination until the end of the plan year following the transaction or because C is new company that is no controlled with A or B - even though 100% of their employees will be from A - do they need their own plan? Why they are doing it this way I have no idea but their accountants/estate planners are structuring it like this and I haven't seen this particular set of facts before.

You can call it anything you want. As long as the participants know the Plan Name, that's fine.

I agree with ERISAtoolkit's answer.

I could be wrong but I thought that rule changed when $3,500 went to $5,000. I recall reading a bunch of articles about cashout sweeps when the market had a big downturn in was it 2008 maybe so I think that's been around for a while.

Technically doesn't appear to be a controlled group so safest course would be to grant service with the prior entity if that's the intent.

If there is no amendment and no resolution then the Plan isn't frozen. Now if it is a choice between him searching his records to find that amendment he signed when he gave out the notice to himself or fund the accrual for 2012, he'll probably look a little harder to find that amendment he signed last year.

QNECs to pass testing can't be used in 401(a)(4) testing but safe-haror non-elective contributions that are very simialr to QNECs can be used in 401(a)(4) testing. That might be some your confussion.

I agree that I don't see anything wrong in theory. Good luck with the broker compiling the info. No personal experience with this being used as a QDIA.

It needs to be funded by 12/31/2012. After that you are in EPCRS land.

Unless you are rolling the actual loan which most plans won't allow, there is no rule that I am awre of that would allow you to continue amortization over more than 5 year in the new plan for this situtation.

Participant terminated many years ago and rolled distribution to IRA. The Ex-participant is now getting divorce and wants to get a balance as of date more than 10 year ago. Presumably to determine pre-marital portion. Is the plan under any obligation to dig though it's old records and find such a balance? The participant was paid more than 7 years ago. I'm pretty sure the answer is no they don't have to unless they want to be really nice for some reason.

No, they don't have to tell him why they gave him a $900 fully vested contribution.

Is the OPR a 401k or 403b plan where his contributions are reported as such on his W-2? If the answer is yes, then it is part of his annual 402(g) limit. A call to the OPR administartor should be able to answer the question pretty quickly. edit - if it is a mandatory contribution it is not part of his 402(g) limit. 402(g) contributions are elective contributions.

I think it would depend on how your document is drafted. Also are you refering to acutal entry in the plan or testing based on statutory exclusions?

Mike maybe I'm way off base and if so I'd like to know but with I would say the following would apply. A has Bob 100% owner, beacuse that is more than 50% adult child daughter is deemed to own 100%. B has adult daughter own 60% more than 50% and is deemed to own the 40% by Bob for 100% A & B controlled through Daughter. Unless the exceptions of 1563(e)(5)(A)-(D) apply, duaghter would similarly own 100% of C through Son-in-law 100% ownership of C. The daughter becomes the common thread in all. But maybe I've got my logic all wrong and the step that passed from daughter to parent is bad leap but I thought that went both ways.

Assuming 1 year wait dual entry they should enter 7/1/13 if 1,000 hrs between 7/1/12-60/30/13. It is a relius related issue depending on how your plan is setup. I think it might be on their FAQs, if not call them we have simialr problems on occasion. If you are processing annually and don't have them as 1000+ hours in 2012 it looks the next computation period 1/1/13-12/31/13. You can manualy fix by overwriting the "met plan entry date" field prior to running eligibility.

You are most likely going to be a conrolled group in this situation. Unless the 60% is given to the daughter and not the son-in-law AND son in law only works for C, not A or B and daugher only works for A/B and not C and daughter and son in law meet the exception on seperate unrelated business which can be a bit complicated and may depend on whether or not it is a community property state.

Thanks. That seems like a solid argument. I'm not expecting problems with this client, just want to have my ducks in a row so to speak if there are issues as another month or two of interest will likely increase their final deposit to make the plan whole by whatever that interest credit is.

Thanks I agree with that position but was wondering if there is any specific IRS guidence I can fall back on if the client wants to take a different position.