rcline46

Why are commissions being confused with bonuses? I think the bigger problem is that deferrals have not been taken in the past from commissions!

Our loan program says the plan loan is due immediately upon termination. That makes it a distribution irrespective of any other distribution rules in the plan. Nothing "deemed" about it.

I am very surprised they is no language for default beneficiary (ies) in the document. It is likely 'hiding' from you, especially if the document is based on one from a national provider. If not under the definition section, then try the distribution section. Get it in PDF format and search, or ask the document provider.

I absolutely regulation by fear. Ye olde Napoleonic code. The big bully because each little guy (our clients) cannot afford to challenge them in the courts. Isn't there an ombudsman in the IRS to take on our questions and fight for us? Its getting to be election time. The IRS/Treasury listens better during this season.

almost all of the definitions are in IRC 414 . Or google the term, or look in the plan document.

HCE determination has to do with the company, not with the plan.

ALL Tractor Trailers you see are known as 5th wheelers. It has to do with the plate on the truck mated with the pin on the trailer. Not a trailer hitch by the bumper, but a plate mounted in the bed of the truck.

I think your document provider needs to step up and detail what that means, and I do not mean by reference.

Welcome back Masteff. This change is merely one of administrative ease. It is NOT a document change in my world. Just remember the True Up and you are fine.

If each plan passes 410(b), then for ADP testing or any other Safe Harbor (ADP, ACP, 401(a)(4)) you only need to look at that plan. When you get fancy you need to look at the general population and the ABPT. If you pass the ABPT, then you can go back to your own/each plan.

As long as each plan passes 410(b) on its own you are fine. If not -BOOM.

But Austin - SOMEBODY HAS TO MOVE IT, and not only that, SOMEBODY HAS TO KNOW WHERE IT IS! And that is the problem, moving the data to the vaporous (cloud) medium. All of the items I mentioned could have been moved timely and preserved. It wasn't.

NASA has lost thousands of computer tape files that were never read. Why? No tape readers, nobody to fix them, they are lost. The tapes may be just fine, but cannot retrieve them. Who has a microfiche reader, even if you have the films. If you have computer backup of CDs, you may want to convert them to Blu Ray already. So your PDF files may be readable in the future, but only if on/in a medium that is still in use. How good are documents on the IBM magcard typewriters? So, some of us more 'experienced' folk don't have a lot of faith in the medium. We have seen much come and go, and lost a bunch of stuff because there was no longer a way to retrieve it. It's not the storage, it's the retrieval.

My dear pixmax - not only have these issues been discussed at length on this board - there is a wonderful tool to let you read all of them - its called SEARCH. Also, you are asking someone to give you detail on two radically different items. The fact that the plan years and fiscal years do not match is a whole series of issues by itself. So get us the factual details wo we won't confuse you.

Brain Scramble time. An LLC taxed as C Corp acquires an LLC taxed as a partnership. That gives issue one. True or false - Since there is no stock in the LLC-P, it is my understanding that this has to be classified as an asset purchase. (see, I am in trouble already!) It so happens all of the people in the LLC-P are on the payroll and are now contributing to the LLC-C 401(k) Plan because t he LLC-P is defunct. But wait, it gets better! The LLC-C agreed to take on the 3% non-elective Safe Harbor plan of LLC-P (which LLC-C had to become the sponsor), and so they want to merge the 3% SH plan into to LLC-C matching SH plan. The 'plan to be merged away' not only has the 3% SH, but it has a different vesting schedule. It was also a spin-off from a PEO plan, but I do not think that presents any issues. So we now have issue two - Current IRS thinking would require this merger to happen at the end of the year because there will be amendments to the LLC-C document to effectuate the merger mid-year - True or False. I do not think the merger (and therefore termination) of the LLC-P plan presents a problem as the original sponsor is defunct, even though the LLC-C is the new plan sponsor. If there is any official guidance I am always happy to learn. Thank you all.

As always, compare the FULL package, not just price. In this example, WHO is responsible for watching the census and account balances to determine if a filing is necessary, and WHO is preparing the 5500-SF?

because the plans are permitted to file a 5500-EZ, which until they get over $250,000 means no 5500 filing.

Sorry for the double posting. I get a multitude of errors when entering a new topic or responding to a topic.

The document does have such a provision. Of course this is a takeover in 2013 and the client would have to justify the age 55 NRA, but that's another issue. He is of course unhappy because he SAYS that he wants his funds safer - but he is the once who chooses the investments in the plan!

NRA is 55, participant is 57 and still working. Plan allows in-service withdrawals at NRA. Plan is a 401(k) and participant wants in-service of deferrals/QNEC/QMAC/Safe Harbor accounts. Participant is insisting he can take the in-service, and I maintain he cannot because he is not 59 1/2. Who is correct? Of course it is the owner and he is being adamant.

NRA is 55, working participant is age 57, plan provides for in-service withdrawal at NRA. Participant wants to have his 401(k)/QNEC/QMAC/Safe harbor accounts distributed, and I say NO because he is under 59 1/2 and still employed. Does the participant win or do I win? Of course this is the owner and he is being forceful.

We charge distribution fees to the account, so that the actual distribution is not affected.

Now I am (still) confused. How on earth is a force out happening is the location of the participant is known? Oh, it is not an auto-rollover, just a force out. In which case you are facing a recalcitrant participant, to which my response is 'tough ,..... (insert your favorite phrase)'

balance forward plans probably works, daily val not so much cuz you need a slush fund/person to allocate it to.

new company will keep A's ein and name or their original ein and name? yes they could be part of a MEP if company A allows it - that is dependent on the first question or course They do not have to set up a new plan, the purchased employees just no longer have a plan - dependent on the first question. there is no 18 month transitional rule applicable here if new company does not have a plan.