rcline46

I do. The rules pre-date the ability to use custodial platforms but the DOL does not care. DIscussions of 'how will they ever find it' are not for this board.

Read the news from Benefits Link from when Bob Architect was at sessions discussing the 403(b) regulations, and the DOL sessions on the new 403(b) regs. Obviously the need for 2 or 3 or how many is only word of mouth and there is nothing in the regs. It was also discussed at SPARK this spring.

And, according to the DOL, at least 2 investment platforms are offered.

The 4 step process makes sure Top Heavy is covered, but with comp while a participant it does not work, so there is a 5th step later in the document. It is a (bad/difficult) methodology that the IRS requires in a document due to the LRMs. The other responders are correct in that the 3% Safe Harbor is actually a separate allocation because it cannot be figured into the integrated formula. Have the person use the 'old' method - get excess comp, multiply by proper integration %, subtract that from the $, divide by the total pay, and if the % is equal to or greater than the integration % you are home free. If not, add the excess comp to the total comp, divide the $ by the total and that is your base and excess %. Or let the computer do it.

Why would anyone state at forfeiture is to reduce unless there is a FIXED contribution? It should be set as added to, and then in a case like this, it works. If an employer makes a contribution, then to get to the amount they want, they short their contribution and add the forfeitures to get the desired result. ALways works. Of course, they also could declare a contribution exactly equal to the forfeiture, and then reduce it giving the result of -0- new money.

"Grantor" is a red herring, not applicable in a qualified plan. To my knowledge, under the qualified plan rules, the IRS has never challenged a sole prop or partners in a partnership acting as trustees of a qualified plan, and being the beneficiaries. Never use an attorney who does not do ERISA work to render un-written opinions on ERISA/Qualified plan items.

You can also ask the service for a 'copy' or verification of the last determination letter. THey can actually verify that one was issued which would become your starting point. Its worth a try.

Deferrals cannot be made until doc permits them, based on later of date signed or effective date. In this case I think you need a VCP submission disclosing client request and actual doc and ask for allowance to permit deferrals. This could take a while. In the meantime get a new doc signed so at least amounts going forward are protected.

The answer is no because any amendment must be non-discriminatory. And the amendment to let the wife in (an HCE) is clearly discriminatory. Search under amendment and discrimination.

Once covered, always covered until you apply for and get a PBGC letter saying not covered. It is much easier to write the request than to just stop filing and have to deal with the situation after the fact.

No reputable enrolled actuary would do ANY db plan without doing the Schedule B. You need the B to prepare next year's B. Eventually the assets will exceed $250,000, the EZ will have to be filed, and the prior year's B (SB) will be needed.

By letting them in the plan, you can specifically avoid a duplication of benefits, but it does not appear such will be the case here (ie can exclude service with the union if the benefit is service related). THen how about the person who worked long enough to get a deferred union pension 20 years ago, and has been out of the union for 20 years, turns 65 and starts getting the union benefit. What about the employee who chose to defer receiving the union benefit so they could get current benefits from the employer. I think there is enough risk here to specifically get a determination letter from the IRS with disclosure of the special exclusion.

Of course you can. You now have an individually designed document and no reliance on the document letter. As the late great Alfred E. Neumann said - "What, me worry?"

I would be concered that it would look like a subterfuge for a maximum age condition, which is not permitted.

In all cases like this I will not act until the requester provides me with their source of anything 'new'. I do respond with 'I have not heard anything about that'.

What if he made 2 deposits with the last as you said? 12? 24?26? 52? I would still calculate the earnings in the same fashion in all cases. If the client is willing to provide regulatory support for any other interpretation and issue a hold harmless letter to me, then I might do something else.

In these situations you NEVER want to relax requirements, and you want the longest wait you can get, give up the 100% vesting for a 2 year wait.

If the NHCEs ever became eligible, then testing is on a 500 hour rule, and the plan would most likely fail. So, in seasonal industries, it is easy to work 1000 hours and become eligible, and normal testing would fail if those who became eligible ever worked over 500 hours.

It does not change the analysis. You are talking about the Joint Board of Administration/Trustees of the UNION. The trustees of the PLAN/administrator of the PLAN would not be considered the sponsor because they run the plan and are composed of union members and employer members. This second group is formed after the plan is formed.

The owner definition of an HCE is ownership of the plan sponsor. Since the UNION is the sponsor of a multiemployer plan, and the union is an association without 'owners', I don't think you can get an HCE through ownership. Note that the employers who contribute to the plan are not sponsors of the plan as that is defined for single or multiple employer plans. At least not in my humble opinion.

Invalid category. Cannot use an exclusion which is based on hours or age.

Under facts given, this is not a controlled group. Not enough information to determine if it is an affiliated service group. Since this is a document issue also, filing the 5500 is not relevant. This had to be determined at the time the document was set up. Once we know the CG/ASG situation, the rest flows.

My suggestion is to have the participant call the EBSA and/or the IRS, explain their situation and ask if they can take their money.

Plan is using prior year testing for ADP and ACP and fails ACP only. There is plenty of room to shift percents from the ADP test. Reading 1.401(m)-2 (final regs) only a shift of $ is shown in the regulation examples, and the examples only indicate the plan is using current year testing. Can we still shift only percents? Can we shift percents if both tests (ADP and ACP) are on prior year? Thanks all.

The excise tax still stays, unless you have an EACA, in which case it applies after 6/30.