rcline46

Do it. We feel it is the same as early entry.

A immediate and heavy financial need - the very definition works against a planned and regular premium. Also, what happened cannot be covered by loans or other outside assets to be a hardship. A planned premium just doesn't make it (in my opinion of course). Strong opinion to follow.

Since I am not a lawyer, yes. For those more timid, get an attorney to give a written opinion.

David, in my opinion, that is a 'red herring'. The participant did reach Benefit Commencement Date as evidenced by the signing of the benefit forms. The fundamental question is - does the difference in timing between 'click' and 'bang' change the target? And I think not.

Suggested, but the DOL thinks it is required. All doc providers have a simplified one with their documents, usually prepared by the financial advisor.

So, in the Plan Year 14-15, ee works 1000 hours, but terminates prior to entry date of 7/1/15. Definite BIS because no hours 7/1/15 thru 6/30/16. I think ee loses all service and is treated as new hire and must re-qualify. Now the good part - if the plan uses 1,000 hours in a 12 month period as definition for 1 YOS, then his 1year is up on 8/14/17. Dual entry would be 7/1/17 or 1/1/18 and 1/1/18 works UNLESS the plan has retroactive entry. FWIW, IMNSHO assuming I got all the parameters right.

I don't think corrections can be in any test, not correction year nor year correction is done. At least that is the way we have always handled them.

Excess only plans - yes. Pre DEFRA,TEFRA, REA. Pre Top Heavy, which is what really killed excess only plans.

This allocation must be general tested or even cross-tested. It is a tiered new comp plan and the formula must be in the plan document at least by year end, maybe sooner depending on allocation conditions. If there are NO HCEs in the plan, it passes automatically.

That is time in excess of 40 hours a week. However it just may be permitted BECAUSE the plan must also the th 1,000 hours in 12 months rule and so people will get in. It is a bit strange though.

There has been some really bad advice happening here, and I hope you were NOT the one providing it. When A adopted B's plan they already violated the 12 month rule. If any of A's employees were paid out due to the acquisition of C and without a termination of B's plan and/or without actual termination from A, then there is an impermissible distribution. If B's plan is not terminated, then a spin-off is indicated. You already have a mess and you need to get an ERISA attorney involved.

Distribute the policies. taxable income on the value in excess of PS 58 costs paid. No loans.

Make up contributions (failure to withhold) could be a QNEC, but earnings are earnings.

What do you have as physical proof - papers, something that he needs the $30,000 to keep the house?

I agree this is not a controlled group, depending on the relationship between 1, 2, and 3, because you fail the 80% rule. There is not enough information to determine if an Affiliated Service Group might exist. So it appears you have Multiple Employer Plan and follow the From 5500 instructions for MEPs.

Ok, 403(b) that excludes Coaches and teachers who only teach 1 class. The ratio test is 70%, so that means all HCES get a match, but less than 70% of the NCEs are eligible for a match. To me that means that more than 30% of the staff are either Coaches or 1 class teachers. This seems like a high proportion of the staff. You also said there was no correction language in the document, so you are on your own. As BG said, doing an -11(g) amendment each year is not good. I might suggest a new class to be included - such as coaches with over 15 years or something like that.

First, as a 403(b) there is universal eligibility, so failing coverage is (almost) impossible. What classes of people are excluded? Once we are sure the 'exclusions' are good, then we can go to the failure problem.

Why audit - in this situation, the opening participants is likely to be way under 100 - like 1 or 2, so no audit.

The 50% left is NOT collateral for the loan.

Does she want to transfer her benefit to buy service credits in the state wide plan? This may be a built-in exception in the document. Worth a look anyway.

HMMMM, for the participant count to increase during the year, you would have multiple entry dates. Hope they are quick to pay out terminees and not hold on like the previous message.

I have been doing ADP/ACP testing since 1983, yes 1983. I have never heard of such B.S. on ADP failures. No matter how the match was determined (and deferral), it must be tested on annual pay. When you match per pay and no true up, it is almost always under the ideal match. So they have two problems - one is testing definition of compensation, and the second is identifying the regulation that supports using only pay while deferring and not pay while eligible to defer. Note that exceeding a 415 or 402(g) limit does not disqualify pay, only exceeding the 401(a)(17 limit.

It is my belief that ALL documents since EGTRRA have a FORCE out (unless the sponsor choose -0-) of small balances. You may have a failure to follow the document in this case. Of course if no payout at all before some age like early or normal retirement you can accumulate people with small balances. We have two of those plans, and they won't change. And they do have to have an audit. However I would assume that is the exception and that most plans have the force out rule.

Life could get interesting, and of course we do not have the document. So on 5/1 the only ones eligible are those who rolled their funds into the plan (one could say), On 6/1 everyone else became eligible since that is the first time they could defer. Just saying.

Look to the Form 5500 instructions about combining a short year with a full year to do one audit.