mattmc82

that is good enough for some of the bigger platforms. The applicable Treasury regulations provide that a hardship distribution can be made available for expenses and losses (including loss of income) in connection with a disaster declared under the Stafford Act "provided that the employee's principal residence or principal place of employment at the time of the disaster was located in an area designated by FEMA for individual assistance with respect to the disaster thats about as good as the guidance gets to my knowledge

from my understanding - these can be allowed on their own. so a plan can have no inservice no loans and no hardships but allow cares act transactions

i see nothing that overrides that. cares act provisions are discretionary so the employer could decide on changing loan policy

i fear the long term thing might kill some plans or make them deferral only. have several with something like 50% of first 5% of match and they struggle to make it each year. audit fees would be more than employer contribution in most cases. i suppose those are the types that will go the open mep route maybe. or they will be pulled from plan assets instead of paid by the company. would have been nice to have $0 balance actives not count towards audit limit included in the bill. my first thoughts with legislation is "how will this help/hurt participants". i just see more cons ultimately for participants with a lot of this.

that requirement to allow long term EE working more than 500 hours is going to send sooo many plans into audit status. which is just going to proliferate open mep participation. really disappointed in ASPPA. Am I alone in thinking this bill is just going to kill off TPAs and be a boon for CPAs and large financial institutions?

stock sale. I would assume it fall under significantly changed

Company A and Company B are part of a controlled group that sponsor a safe harbor profit sharing plan. Both companies are sold midyear to unrelated. Assume acquiring entities do not own any other companies. Can Company B create their own plan midyear AFTER the transaction? I know transition rules provide some relief for mergers, but I am having trouble finding guidance on when a controlled group of employers becomes unrelated midyear. the safe harbor provisions makes me lean towards that this has to be a MEP until years' end. Thoughts?

thank you both. Confirmed my thoughts.

For sake of simplicity I will just use an example 1000 shares in suspense in 2017 Original amortization schedule is 20 payments of 160 (total payments of 3,200) 160/3,200 x 1000 = 50 shares released with $3,040 in remaining loan payments Year 2018 the amortization schedule was updated by the valuation company and is 20 payments of 155 (total payments of 3,100) should the 2017 share release be recalculated to reflect this updated amortization schedule?

I am curious how others set up and track these plans. Assume individual accounts. So prevailing wage contributions are made to offset 3% SNHE contributions. All non PW EEs receive 3% SHNE from the employer. However, as I understand it, any PW contribution in excess of 3% of pay would be classified as discretionary profit sharing. Should I be attempting to set up two DB/PW buckets? Or is it allowable to re-source the money into SHNE / discretionary? The reason I ask is because down the line, it may get tricky with determining amounts available for hardship or early in-svc withdrawals and the like. Thanks

I have two takeover 403(b) plans that have Student Employees listed as an excluded class. It was my understanding that this exclusions would not apply unless the plan was for a school, and that employee was a student of that school. the prior TPA had been excluded all employees that were currently and regularly attending class. But neither plan is an educational instutiion (or auxillary to one) Agree or disagree with me that this is incorrect and that all of those employees that otherwise satisfied the eligibility requirements should be in the plan and eligible for all contributions?

what if they were only exlcuded from matching contributions?

that's a good point, thanks. now im wondering if my takeover plans should be restated to limit

Working way through restatements, as I am sure many of you are doing. Can anyone think of a good reason for a (Safe harbor!) plan to limit deferrals to 85% of compensation (rather than just no plan imposed limit)? I am having trouble coming up with a scenario where this will come into play. thanks

a more effective design would be 3 plans, a k with 1 yr , and a PSP and DBP with 2. you're stuck now.

Right, which I expected for the attachments. I was just curious what others were doing for the SB that is filled out as a "sum of each plan". I assume its reasonable to average the rates and override the credit balance. Down the road the AFTAPs could differ as well. As far as the instructions to Complete a Schedule SB for each employer showing information relative to that employer’s portion of the plan, and submit them as an attachment to the Instructions for Schedule SB (Form 5500) -2- Schedule SB for the plan. Label the attachment “Schedule SB – Information for Each Individual Employer.” how are you handling the attachments? Are you attaching forms with cover sheets or just attaching the applicable information to a generic attachment? much appreciated!

So with a Multiple-A type plan, you file a SB for the plan (computing the entries as a sum of the individual amounts for each employer) and just attach an SB for each employer. Seems simple enough, but what to do about effective rate and ROR? Or is a better question, does it even matter? thanks

I know some are using Sep 10 rates as a conservative estimate. Seems that is overly conservative, but I also can't think of any solid way to estimate the rates without some off the clock nerd work

agree with Andy unless this was somehow an HCE

i assume most people used the same one as I that has recently become "not free" this one is, but you have to register your email for it http://www.genealogybank.com/gbnk/ssdi/

Does this mean the benefit could be increased to use up the surplus? any increase is going to have to have an additional increase for staff. testing is tight so increased benefit or distributing excess on a tested basis does the same thing oh well, thought I'd give it a shot, thanks for the comments

From a ASPPA webcast**** The PBGC must also be notified of the funding relief election if the plan is covered by the PBGC. This notice is done by emailing a copy of the election to the PBGC within 30 days after the election is made to: 1. singleemployer. funding.relief.election@pbgc.gov. 2. The subject line of the email must contain the plan sponsor’s employer identification number, the plan number, and the name of the plan.

415 isn't an issue either. any acopa folks have an idea if we can expect any funding relief soon? thanks.

sole propietor, 1 nhce and 1 nhce inactive owner makes up 98% of pvab overfunding would result in having to distribute the excess on a tested basis, and in this case the one NHCE is already getting a fairly large amount. not the biggest problem in the world, just thought there should be someway to avoid having to overfund. if it was possible to switch to BOY val, ftap >100 and the bases are wiped out and all is good. as of right now, I don't think we have automatic approval for that.

Hello there. Long time lurker, these boards are a wonderful resource for seeing varying opinions. Scenario EOY VAL cash balance plan Plan terminated in 2012 AFTAP is 95% No Credit Balance A contribution of the accruals funds the plan 100% on a termination basis However, with the SF + TNC, the MRC is 30k more than the accruals. I've scouted several resources looking for an alternative to forcing the client to overfund. I know occasionally some of our rules have unintended consequences, but was hoping maybe someone has come across the same issue. Thank you!