rcline46

EACAs and QACAs require a 3% minimum. As such I don't have a problem with 3% although I would not suggest it outside of these plans.

Austin, have you had any problems uploading the 5500 to web client and having the clients sign/view the forms?

Are there any known issues using Relius Web client to submit 5500s to clients and DOL? Anyone having software problems?

If the leasing company is doing deferrals on 'inside' employees, they can do it for all employees. In my humble opinion, they are lazy, prevaricating, or both.

Ok, what are the rules for receiving the discretionary match, and the vesting on the match? That is missing from the OP.

A TRUSTEE almost never has the right to amend a plan.

Open an IRA and make a deposit. Use private locator service or IRS to find them. There is no choice.

Was the person loaded into relius with eligibility run in the prior plan year? If not that is a problem. If loaded this year but hired last year you should have them coded as 'ineligible-service' and not 'blank'. Relius lives in its perfect little world, and if you don't do it right, it makes 'perfect' assumptions.

The OP said it was a rollover check - I don't think it was specified as another plan or an IRA. The 5498 is issued only by IRA entities, not plans. So determining the original target is a factor.

You are correct.

The IRS actually matches the 1099-R rollover with a 5498. When the match fails there will be an audit of the plan, requests for front and back of ALL checks for that year - an imposition on both the TPA and the client. I would fix the 1099-R and only if questioned on the withholding issue disclose what happened. If you do electronic filing of the 1099-R, it can be fixed now. If paper filing must be a corrected 1099-R.

Top Heavy is avoided ONLY IF the contributions are deferrals and the SH contribution. YOu have an elective match, so TH is triggered. Your software is correct.

In my opinion, if the IRS checked this, and discovered the employee was bribed, yes bribed, to not be in the plan, and the especially if the ee was an NCE, the IRS or DOL would not look kindly on the employer interfering with the ERISA rights of an ee.

My opinion is that the HCE will elect a lump sum. The plan cannot pay and therefore will annuitize until a lump sum is available, and then pay the lump sum. Some may think this requires a document change, I think the HCE restriction language specifically permits this. There fore I voted for lump sum.

If the plan is paying the fees, this is definitely a fiduciary violation. I would say there is also fraud involved if he really did not terminate at the time. However, if you are the TPA you really cannot do much. if you are a fiduciary, then you can report him.

Third year of CB plan, takeover of course! When computing the maximum contribution with cushion we get $210,000. The hypothetical balances are $216,000. Now we get to the fun part - client contributed $80,000 before we got the plan. So now we compute the maximum as cushion amount less assets (and remember 2009 was a very good year for assets) and we have assets (not counting contributions and all the other adjustments) of $146,000. So max contribution is $64,000 and client put in $80,000 before the end of the year - a $16,000 overage. If we were to use the hypothetical as maximum we reduce the overage to $10,000. Can we use the hptothetical balance as the maximum?

Set NRA to 65 and 10 participation - yeah, you cant do that in a document. Set the person's nRA to age 70 if Relius does not have that. An assumption. I will not vouch for the legality of these items, but it should push the NRA over 65 to get a better EBAR. Check with your advisor/actuary to see if they approve it. I agree the testing is somehow 'wrong'. Actually, the 'points' for this person should be determined the same way the testing is done - from 65 - and not current age.

Why is non-discrimination bombing? If you mean a cross tested plan with groups that is one option, but a traditional age weighted plan should not fail.

She must take the RMD before the rollover.

In my 35 years of working on plans and with ERISA attorneys, a change in the vesting schedule has never applied to terminated employees. Under every DOL, IRS, and PBGC audit this was never even questioned. Terminated employees fall into a different category. You must watch the language in the plan document as applied to terminated participants to active participants. Now if the amendment or the document is drafted poorly, you just might have that problem.

research Voluntary Contributions

We will use the SF only if there is no way to make the EZ work for a client. Wish we had an easy way to get those old 5500s which can now be EZs out of the DOL bad list.

mbozek - there were two questions in the original post, both of which were answered - 1. when checking the 415 limit for a 401(a) plan, do you include elective contributions from a 403(b) plan? The answer is no with the exception of separate entity owners with a 401(a). 2. If necessary to run an ABP for a 401(a) plan due to cross testing, are elective deferrals (or any other contributions) to a 403(b) required to be included? The answer is no. My problem is/was that with all of the references provided, not one specifically state the answers above. The answers are inferred by lack of inclusion. For example, under th 403(b) regulations, for testing non-discrimination it specifically excludes deferrals to 403(b) plans, and specifically excludes non-403(b) plans. Corresponding language does not exist in the 401(a) regulations to exclude non-401(a) plans. Note that 401(a) plans INCLUDE deferrals in testing while 403(b) plans exclude deferrals. The wonderful result is that a participant in a 403(b) gets a 401(a) 415 limit, a 415(b) 415 limit plus a 457 limit! $114,500 in all! (plus relevant catch ups if eligible)

I looked at the chart and poor Ms. Calhoun is as guilty as everyone else! On the line where other plans are discussed, for 401(a) (or k) she says other 'qualified' plans are combined. But for goverment 401(k) she SPECIFICALLY mentions 403(b) and 457(b). Now I know that a 403(b) plan is not a Qualified Plan (special meaning). Should could have specifically excluded 403(b) and 457(b) plans and did not. If her use of 'qualified' plan has the meaning given in 401(k) documents, then maybe she does not have to mention 403(b). But then should could have used the term under the 403(b) column to exclude qualified plans but did not. With apologies to Carol who has been a great help to all in the pension community - CLARITY and CONSISTENCY please! (I know - consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds)

Now I am really messed up! That is what I get for reading regulations. It would seem that 403(b) employER contributions are separate from 401(a) employER contributions when doing a 415 test within the same employer and it does not appear to have changed with the final 403(b) regulations. What a deal! That leaves the elective deferral. Now I am not sure the elective deferral is counted in the 415 limit for the 401(a) plan - is it real or is it Memorex? Is it an employEE or employER contribution for this purpose? Or does it matter? As I said to lippy before, I want clarity! The regs actually say in 415 what is included and to some extent what is excluded, but the 403(b) contributions are not mentioned! Only in the 403(b) regulations discussing 403(b) compliance and discrimination are the deferrals mentioned. Does this mean they deferrals are excluded in checking 415 in 401(a) plans?