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.

For purposes of the 6% of pay limit in a combined plan deduction calculation, if a participant in the DC plan does not receive any employer funded contribution, but is eligible for the 401(k) part and does or does not defer, is their compensation included in the 6% calculation? Some argue you include their comp if they’re eligible to defer. Others, like me, say you only include their comp if they get employer money; deferrals irrelevant. Your input is greatly appreciated. edit: typo.

I would imagine only those that are subject to the rules of Circular 230 which are listed in the blurp. The attorney's and actuaries here at our firm use that language as well.

U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT NOTICE/CIRCULAR 230 DISCLAIMER: Pursuant to regulations governing the practice of attorneys, certified public accountants, enrolled agents, enrolled actuaries, enrolled retirement plan agents and appraisers before the Internal Revenue Service, unless otherwise expressly stated, any U.S. federal or state tax advice in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by a taxpayer for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal or state tax law or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or tax-related matter(s) addressed herein.

If you have access to the ERISA outline, you can find a comparison chart there. If you don't have access to it, repost and I'll scan it and attach it.

Tom, That is exactly how our firm handles amounts > than RMD. We make sure that the document permits in-service distributions at NRA and we advise our clients that they additional amount over the RMD is taxable at 20%.

You know I posted not too long ago that "no question was stupid" but I really am eating my words right now. I guess the 01/17/2012 due date is the deadline for 2009 and 2010 without having to complete the 5558. So, the penalty for filing it late would begin after 01/17/2012 (for 2009/2010) Thanks for your response, Mike!

If Form 8955 for 2009 and 2010 is not filed by the deadline of 1-17-2012, it is my opinion that the “per day” penalty runs from the date the annual report (5500) was due, determined without regard to extensions. Thus, if a Form 5558 was filed to extend the return, but the 8955 filing is not completed by the extended deadline, the penalty for BOTH 2009 and 2010 is calculated from the original deadline for the 2010 5500. Is this correct? Since the IRS "may" waive or reduce the penalty for reasonable cause, how do you apply for such a waiver?

No question is stupid, ERISA1. If you need to know, it's better to ask - and where would be a better place to ask than on a board full of industry experts??? I'm pushing the "like" button. Too many times we will proceed along a path because we're too afraid to ask. Just look at it like this: "When someone antagonizes you for asking a 'simple' question, it is a reflection of their lack of self esteem; not yours Good Luck!

No question is stupid, ERISA1. If you need to know, it's better to ask - and where would be a better place to ask than on a board full of industry experts???

Yes, that is correct. The 402(g) limit is a personal limit, and therefore, he cannot contribute more than what he already has. As for the 415 limit, he could contribute 25% of his income to that solo plan in the same year.