ConnieStorer

Thanks Tom. After several attempts I was able to get the dates I wanted.

I have a defined benefit plan on Relius. The Plan year changed from 1/1 to 7/1. Does anyone know how I can create a new Plan Year that uses the 7/1 date rather than the 1/1 date? There are over 350 participants and I do not want to re-enter the employee information. Any thoughts would be helpful.

I have a client who is getting multiple requests from Participants, both Active employees and deferred vesteds, about starting their benefit payments. The client requests a distribution package, send it out to the participant and then does not hear back until the package is outdated. The Plan is a defined benefit and each request requires that a complete set of calculations is performed. The client is getting tired of paying for multiple calculations on the same participant. I was wondering if anyone out there has a solution that has helped in this type of situation. thanks, Connie

Connie, it's often called a triple stacked match or just a stacked match. If you do a search on those terms, either here or on google, you might find more info as well. Thanks, I will look that up.

I have a potential client who sent me an illustration from a competitor. They called the plan design a "Multiple Match401(k) Program. I have seen many illustrations over the years but none quite like this. The plan is set up as a profit sharing plan with the safe harbor match provision. Then, on top of the 4% match they allocate a 100% match titled "Fixed Required Match". The next allocation is titled "Optional 4% Match" where they allocate an additional 4%. Under this scenario the client ends up with a deferral of $16,500 and a match of $32,500. The claim (according to the potential client) is that since the additional matching amounts are based on the original safe harbor match then the whole matching contribution amount is not subject to testing. I see both a failure to provide Top Heavy minimums since the plan is providing more than the 4% safe harbor match along with a failure of the ACP test. Has anyone heard of any such loophole in the regs?