Bill Presson

I'll see what I can do.

Thanks Larry. I edited to clarify that I was answering no exceptions.

Generally, no, there are no exceptions. It's an employer decision. (edited because it looked like I was answering the wrong thing. Thanks Larry)

I've used Penchecks for a lot of years and been very happy with their services. WCP

Thanks. I'm not opposed to it, but almost everything comes back to the payroll data. If a 3(16) isn't actually doing the payroll and controlling an employer checking account, I don't see how they are relying any less on the assumption and timing of good data than we are.

Austin, what about the corollary to "getting plenty of new business without having to mention it."?? Are you losing any business to a firm doing it? Either in a competitive situation or losing existing clients? We've debated this for a long time at my existing firm and at my prior firm. I keep thinking it's going to be huge, but it just never seems to really take off.

These options work well in a owner only 401(k). But in a 401(k) with other employees, the after tax contribution typically won't pass the ACP test.

A little surprised that FIS couldn't provide you with a sample -11(g) amendment.

The plan year isn't relevant. The calendar year controls whether the amount was more than the 402(g) limit. What were the amounts during calendar year 2018?

Negative Ghostrider, the pattern is full.

Here's an article from yesterday with links to the new proposed rules and additional information from the DOL. DOL Proposed Electronic Disclosure Rules

Thank you, sir.

Not until after 2020. Then they can still maintain separate plans as long as they pass coverage. If they are large enough, they might consider QSLOB treatment. Or they could merge the plans.

Tom, While not unexpected, this is a sad day for the rest of us. You've been a tremendous contributor to this forum and to the benefits world at large. I wish you all the very best.

We worked with them to help design it and are starting to use it extensively. We don't use it for client signatures. We use it strictly to track where the distribution is in the process. They needed to have some options for people that run in house daily as well.

It's not unusual to have a different entity own the building. Does that rental company have any employees? And I don't think real estate is one of the professions that are subject to ASG rules.

Agree with this. They've never done a payroll advance? Or deducted for United Way? I find it hard to believe.

I still think that you are overthinking this. It has NOTHING to do with the plan. The employer kept some money from the employees that they shouldn't have. The employer now needs to give it to the employee. Yes, the 2017 w-2 shows incorrect deferrals, but it doesn't change their tax situation. They paid taxes on everything they got. I think the employer gives them the money now and moves on.

This is actually a pretty typical set up for a not for profit. They usually will refer to the profit sharing plan as the 401(a) plan. I'm curious about the "one has recently learned of the other" and what you mean by that. Are you just talking about the TPA firms doing the work?

If it's under 100 participants then a welfare benefit plan is generally not required to file.

My friend, Kirsten Curry with Leading Retirement Solutions, announced this earlier this week: https://www.seattlechamber.com/HOME/membership/member-news/detail/new-cannabis-401(k)-plan-levels-the-playing-field-for-cannabis-companies

I believe Derrin covered much of this here:https://benefitslink.com/cgi-bin/qa.cgi?n=214&db=qa_who_is_employer

You have to look at what the plan says and I'm pretty confident this won't be it.

I think you could keep the assets "combined" if the assets were in an 81-100 group trust.

If the match is truly calculated on a "per payroll" basis, I would contend that no match can be done for the partners until their income is determined. A draw isn't a payroll. If the plan is going to true up the match, then I'm not as concerned.