Bill Presson

I'm guessing the hours are just wrong unless s/he really did nothing in the business.

So, let's discuss for a moment. Assuming all the dates for the OP are 2017. Rhoda is hired on Feb 15 and enters the plan on 6/1, then the eligibility is changed in September 2017 to requirements that she does not meet. Now to discuss things that aren't presented by the OP. 1. Let's assume it's a safe harbor non elective plan (and ignoring all the safe harbor amendment requirements for the moment). Would she get a 2017 contribution? I would say yes. 2. Let's assume it's a regular 401(k) and she starts deferring on 6/1. She's a participant at that point but in September would move to an ineligible category, correct? But she's still a participant for the 5500 count. 3. Let's assume it's a regular 401(k) and she doesn't start deferring on 6/1. She's initially a participant, but in September would move to an ineligible category and then WOULDN'T be a participant for the 5500 count, correct?

So you're saying she already entered the plan on 6/1 and then three months later the eligibility requirements are changed? Now, I know you can change a category of eligibility that would impact a participant, like excluding a division prospectively. But I"m pretty sure you can't change the eligibility for someone already in the plan. I'll see if i can find something on that.

So when they get "chunks", are they paying it out as w-2 income? Or are they self employed and just getting a draw? Because their actual income then wouldn't be determined until much later.

That's kind of a big deal that she missed that.

I think you will see that 7a and 7b have been updated and provide a choice now. One of our staff members spent a lot of time on the phone with the IRS last week.

I used to see it quite often in physician employment contracts. But it's been awhile now since I've seen the last one. I've always told them that an employment contract doesn't override the plan document and ERISA. It seems most attorneys are starting to realize that.

Happy Holidays and Merry Christmas everyone! #RollTide

They can't exclude service prior to a specific plan element only prior to the adoption of the plan and only then when it's first effective.

Then why the amendment now? Why not make it effective 1/1/18?

I'm not particularly worried about the timing. There's nothing inherently wrong with making a deposit early. But you just have to pass all the tests at the end of the year and that's why we recommend not doing so. As of now, I still think it's a compensation issue. If it turns out there's not enough comp to support the deposit, then the document will explain what to do with a 415 excess contribution.

If all this happened in 2017, to me it's very possible that the $10k was actually a deferral and the payroll just wasn't completed correctly. So, I don't see this as a plan issue, I see it as a payroll issue that needs to be corrected. WCP

Can any (all) of the $10k be considered a 401(k) deferral? Then I don't think you have any issues. WCP

So it's basically 60 days. For a transfer to be done in good order, I always recommend between 60-90 days. It generally has to be at least 30 days because of the blackout notice. Longer than 90 days is a bit ridiculous. And in this case, I would want it to be 1/1 or shortly after and let the other group handle all the 2017 filings anyway.

I completely agree. I've been on the ASPPA conference committee for 4 years now and will serve as a co-chair for the next 2 years before rotating off. The lack of cooperation from government the last several years has been incredibly frustrating. People are fine with following the rules to get the benefits. But we need to know what the rules are.

Just remember that the IRS response is always deemed to not be a resource AND it wasn't said at this conference. Adam Pozek remembered it from a few years ago. But if your plan ever gets in trouble, Sal or Ms Ilene or Ms Kelsey are available for hire to help get them out. :)

Same.

I clicked just to see if the answer was actually MOOR and not MOOP.

Notifying as a practical matter would almost assuredly be done. Especially to those participants with account balances since they'll be receiving distribution paperwork. But I believe the thrust of the OP is whether is was required which would trigger meeting certain deadlines, etc.

The assets of the plan are owned by the trust and the trust typically has it's own TIN unless the assets are held by a formal recordkeeper. That's the TIN you need to be locating.

I can't believe this thread has two pages.

If you look at the link I provided from 2004, they (at least some of them) reached the conclusion that a former participant with no entitlement to current or future benefits was not required to receive an SAR.

I can't imagine that an active participant without a balance wouldn't be entitled to a copy of the SAR. How that person would be carved out of "participant" would be interesting. Prior BenefitsLink discussion:

Generally if the insurance company sends you the Schedule A, you need to include it.

Yes ma'am. For what other reason (perhaps plan document?) are you concerned about using the EIN for?