Bill Presson

Give the HCE's a pay cut and give them the entire 3% safe harbor.

I thought the DOL gave actuaries the ability to just print their name and initial it. I sign my name because it's less legible!

I thought the DOL gave actuaries the ability to just print their name and initial it.

Yes, you should maintain a nonsafe harbor match source.

Probably only 1 out of 5 of our clients actually received an extension acceptance letter.

Not sure concern is the correct term, but my clients (and others) often express surprise that the 5500 is a public form. I'm not aware of fraud specifically associated with knowing the employer's EIN, but it's used repeatedly in business transactions.

I'm not aware of a time limit, so maybe someone can let us know. But to be blunt, I would be concerned if I were you. Things like this tend to be hints of a company in trouble. You should definitely ask your HR or contact the administrator of the plan to see if you can get an explanation.

Monica, as long as the state insurance dept & the ERPA groups have both approved the class, then it counts for both.

The coverage test you're referring to is in section 410(b). It's based on the number of Highly Compensated Employees covered compared to the number of Non-Highly Compensated Employees covered. The rule of thumb is that you have to cover 70% of the NHCEs, but it's a hard test to describe on a message board. Assuming you have a competent TPA, they should be able to tell you how your census will impact what you want to do. If you need something more specific, just sent me a private message.

Yes, under VCP. This is provided that you did not exceed the 5 year repayment period. You know, I've seen this in several instances where the participant wanted to pay the loan current and resume payments when the loan actually had a significant amount of time left. I allowed the payment even though it was, technically, beyond the cure period. It goes to comfort. If challenged on audit, the IRS agent "may" deem it taxable or actually decide the violation isn't eggregious enough to challenge it (given their potential fixes under Rev. Proc. 2008-50). This will, ultimately, be a judgement call on your part. In instances that I faced, I noticed that a "right to cure" was not communicated to the participant. Had it been communicated and the loans defaulted timely, it wouldn't be an issue. Also, keep in mind the Regs "Require" it to be solved by the end of the quarter following the quarter in which the first payment was missed (as you clearly stated). The plan's provisions may have been sooner (i.e. 60 days). The regs merely preclude the plan from going beyond that period. Good Luck! I agree with this. Assuming it was within the same plan year, I would see what the Employer/Plan Administrator was willing to do. If the date for deeming the loan was in a prior plan/calendar year, I would be less likely to recommend leniency to the Employer.

Yes, ma'am. Worked like a charm for 3 years. Have to give some credit to the DOL for having a stable site.

I really like Relius and have been happy with everything we've used. But I can't tell you how happy I am that we decided not to use Web Client. We just extract the plan from Relius Govt Forms and upload directly to the DOL site. The client logs in and signs, then we go and submit the file. In three years, we've not had a single major problem with the site. I really think Relius needs to end the web client and use those resources for other purposes.

This is a good example of why we try really hard to not work with any platform providers and offer our own daily platform. We get to set the rules instead of living with others' rules. (self serving comment: we're also working with TPA's that don't like those kind of restrictions and are providing recordkeeping services for them) I wish you the best.

Does the plan allow for participants to make a separate election for bonuses? Does the plan allow for participant to change their deferral election at any time? Did the participants say anything whether or not in writing that indicated they did not want 401(k) amounts withheld. It's possible that some combination of the above will allow the plan to have actually been in compliance.

This is what we're planning as well.

Not if they meet the exception in the link I provided.

I think they should deduct the NHCE contribution on the correct Sch C because it would have an impact on SE taxes. But make sure you have a controlled group first. If there are no children under 21, it might not be. http://www.mhco.com/library/Articles/2010/...olG_022510.html

Any time within 12 months of the last one.

That's become a standard letter sent by EBSA. It is a suggestion, but not a requirement.

In 1990, I got prepared for my very first DOL investigation (audit). I had already been through several IRS audits for clients and had everything organized the exact way with the 2848 on top. When the DOL rep sat down, I handed him the 2848 and he asked what it was. I told him it was a POA and that was always the first thing I gave the IRS reps. He said, "We don't care about a POA. We're the Department of Labor and are conducting an investigation. We'll talk to whomever we want and if we don't get answers, we'll get a subpoena." I never worried about a POA for them again.

It's only problematic in that it will likely not be able to keep the policy in force for long.

We bill by the hour. A lot depends on the familiarity of the attorney drafting the DRO and whether they send it to us for review before getting it signed by a judge.

We've done this kind of thing before. And, inevitably, we start getting the requests "at the employee meeting just explain what a mutual fund is and what the types are, etc." We will not accept plans without an advisor anymore.

That's my interpretation.

There is nothing preventing you from having both plans in effect at the same time as long as you don't exceed the 415 limits.