QNPG

Thanks, Tom. I appreciate your response.

Safe harbor plan is satisfying the ADP safe harbor by making the 3% non-elective contribution. The plan also has a discretionary match formula of 0-7% deferred=0% match; 7-8% deferred= 100% of 1% match (participant will receive 1% of compensation as match if they defer more than 7%). The ACP test will be performed since this formula exceeds the 6% limit but my question/concern is related to the rate of match increasing as the rate of deferrals increase. Since the ACP test is going to be done, is this tiered match acceptable if we can satisfy the BRF test? Any guidance would be greatly appreciated. QNPG

Thank you Masteff and BG5150.

Well, I read that part but is it considered "premature" distribution? The participant received too much money.

I took my CPC exam at the same time as you (in 2010) and got my letter in the mail around the 6th or 7th of January (of 2011). They told me I'd receive it much later in the month so don't be surprised if you get the ASPPA letter a little early

Facts: Plan document allows for hardship distributions from the deferral source only. A participant (NHCE) received more than the basis in his account at the fault of the TPA. The distribution happened in 2013. Question: If the participant repays the overpayment, is the repayment credited back to his account OR put into an "unallocated" account to be used to reduce future employer contributions? I read Section 6.06(3) of Rev. Proc 2013-12 (EPCRS) where it states that the repayment be placed in an unallocated account which is a separate account that is not allocated on behalf of any participant or beneficiary established for the purpose of holding the Overpayment, again adjusted for Earnings, to be used to reduce employer contributions (other than elective deferrals) in the current year or succeeding year. It is not clear to me whether the repayment by the PARTICIPANT rather than the actual employer or another person would affect the method of repayment (restore to participant's account or put in unallocated account). Any opinions on the interpretation of Rev. Proc 2013-12 or maybe some practical experience with this type of failure to share? Thanks, QNPG

BG5150, I'm sure you scored a 9.

I have a plan which is a spin-off from a multiple employer plan. Considering a spin-off is a continuation of the MEP, should the new spin-off plan be numbered #001?

Since the four siblings own less than 80% of A, B, C and E, then D does not meet the requirement to be a Bro/Sis CG. Effective control (more than 50%) is met but not common control (at least 80%).

How is E included in the CG?

I'm no expert on controlled group determinations, but this one intrigued me...so here is my answer. Let me know if you agree A+B are controlled A+C are controlled A+B+C are a controlled A+D are NOT controlled A+E are NOT controlled B+C are controlled B+D are NOT controlled B+E are NOT controlled C+D are NOT controlled C+E are NOT controlled D+E are NOT controlled CG_analysis.pdf

Go, Tom!

Like. Thanks to ERISAtoolkit, we now have a "like" button. I wonder how difficult it would be to create an "easy" button, too. ???

This has also been my question in the past and it was explained to me exactly the way that ERISAtoolkit previously explained.

I haven't heard anything about a discontinuance of the ERPA designation. I'd be very interested to know if there is something in the works, though.