Bill Presson

The thing I hate worst is when people want advice but don't provide all the information that might be needed to actually provide the advice. This isn't 20 questions. If you want advice, post your situation and stop wasting peoples time. Good grief.

Kevin C is correct. I misread the OP message and thought it terminated in 2016. Sorry about that.

Peter, Generally the fact sheets are created by a large provider like Newkirk or Broadridge. They get the data they use from a data dump of information from the fund companies or another large provider like Blue River. Generally the fact sheets (whether they include the actual restrictions or just a reference that there might be restrictions) are correct when created. But that doesn't mean they will always remain correct. The daily recordkeeping system that we had in my former job would allow a flag where the participant could click a link to see the specific restrictions because the fact sheet might be out of date. Also (as hr mentioned), typically a flag would pop up if there was the possibility of short term redemption fees or market timing restrictions. With all that said, it was practically impossible to ensure that every single fund in every single plan remained up to date every single day. The fund companies routinely made changes in those items. So when a trade would be entered, it was always possible that the fund company flagged it on their system and then notified the custodian. But remember that the fund companies almost never have the participant data. So they are looking at the large trades. How closely they monitor the trades depends on how the custodian sets up the accounts (omnibus or individual plan). So the fund company would flag a trade and send a request (22-c2) to the custodian who forwards it to the recordkeeper to run a report and determine if there is a violation. All in all not a great system, but there are very few fund companies that even do it any more. The last two years I was at WA, I think we only got one 22-c2 request.

I can't comprehend why the employer would do it that way. But I don't believe you can offset the cost by the additional compensation. The regs don't even allow you to take into account that cafeteria premiums are pre tax. They need to take a look at what they're doing and why and revamp it for 2016, IMHO.

I started my TPA firm in 1986 (since merged into Unified Trust) and I remember telling prospects that they should work with me instead of the old guys. My reasoning is that I only had to know the current laws and regulations and it wouldn't get mixed up with all that old stuff. Now I'm one of the old guys.

If they were active on the first day of the year, then they are active for the 5500 count and audit purposes.

I think the termination amendment should address it. However, if it didn't then the Plan Administrator has to interpret the documents to make that determination. Finally, I think consistency with how payrolls that crossed the plan year were handled would possibly influence the final decision. If 9/30 was the plan year end, would compensation from 9/19 to 9/30 have been accrued or would all the compensation have been considered earned on 10/2 (similar to which w-2 the comp would show on for a calendar year end).

Sole proprietors have always had a 10/15 filing date and calculations have been done without issue in the past. Not sure I understand the corporate extension to 11/15 that you reference.

Yes. The QACA plan has to be amended to exclude the SCA employees. The SCA plan would exclude everyone except the SCA employees.

Seems like we had a long thread about something very similar to whether the distribution process in an ESOP could be changed. It was in the last year or two. I wonder if this is the same people involved in that thread.

Replace Macallan with Woodford Reserve and we agree.

Define "some"...

Lou S. is correct.

Understood on the disagreement, especially from the insurance companies. But, at least, I have a letter from Jim Holland and they don't. WCP

If too much was contributed, why is there any corrective contribution?

I know there are some disagreements on the taxation of ps money that has been in the plan for more than two years and is used for premiums. But I'm just talking about using rollover money and the interplay with the incidental rules. For a participant to get a 1099 on just the taxable term costs, the insurance premiums must pass the incidental tests. Let's just use the "less than 50% of the total contributions" test for these purposes. In this instance the entire amount would be rollovers and (at least initially) there would be no contributions. If there were contributions sufficient to allow the premiums to pass the incidental test, I don't think we would be having this discussion. In 1992, I sent an information request to the service to ask about several of these issues. The specific response related to this is: "Because rollover money is neither a 'contribution' nor a 'forfeiture', no portion of the rollover money is taken into consideration when determining the amount of premiums that may be used to provide an incidental level of insurance coverage." So, I think it's pretty clear in the OP's situation as I understand it, that any money used to pay premiums would violate the incidental tests and would, therefore, be 100% taxable.

Rollover money doesn't count in the incidental tests. So, unless they are making regular contributions, the premiums would be a taxable distribution. It's still kosher, but the agent won't want to follow the tax rules.

I agree with Flyboy. Just wait for the letter that will never arrive.

If all the sources are 100% vested, then you are meeting the "minimum" vesting requirements.

The IRS issued new guidance this spring. https://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/New-Methods-for-Correcting-Elective-Deferral-Errors

It's fine to change the dividend option to have them reduce the premiums. It's not a prohibited option. WCP

Usually, it's the wife in a physician practice that is performing office services for about what the deferral amount would be.

I think you have two options: 1. Amend to 90% 2. Find a new payroll provider As a general rule, we recommend clients keep the maximum at 80 or 90 because of the payroll tax issue.

Couple of things (I'm assuming calendar year): 1. What did they file in 2014? 2. How many participants will the plan have on January 1, 2015? Since it's likely an entry date, you can't just say 102, though it's possible.

Additional info and I know how to fix it even though I don't know why it's doing it. So I have my laptop set up on my left and then a large screen directly in front. I've got the monitor set as "extended" and I use the right screen to view virtually everything. My browser is maximized. If I hit the "window" button in the top right to take it out of maximize status, scrolling works even if I go back to maximize. Weird.