ETA Consulting LLC

Is the account still in the husbands name with the wife as beneficiary? If so, then you'd use the wife's single life expectancy (which gets recalculated each year). Now, if the wife were to actually rollover her husbands account into her own, then she'd use the Uniform Table. This is, of course, assuming she is also an actual participant in the plan. Good Luck!

I don't charge anything for a simple document request. Good Luck!

This is one of those areas where the "Plan Administrator is solely responsible for interpreting the terms of the plan". You could argue that the most reasonable approach would be to allocate the contribution based on Compensation received as an associate. This would protect his right to receive an accrual after we worked 1000 hours as an associate. This argument could easily be discredited by the "last day rule"; since 'technically' no one has accrued the right to an allocation. Along those lines, it "MAY" be a perfect time to create a 'clarifying' amendment to address this issue; (e.g. what to do with associates who became partners during the year). Good Luck!

Huh? The current $20K in loan goes only toward the 50% loan amount. When determining the $50K limit, you're reducing it by the highest outstanding amount. So, if the current loan ($20K) was at $30K during the last 12 months, then the highest loan available would be $20K (provided that it does not exceed 50% of the vested balance when taken). So, if the plan allows for 2 loans, then should would be able to take another $20K, and the new loan total would be $40K. Good Luck!

Come to think of it, that realignment is done prior to the blackout (and, hence, the notice). So, it would be incumbent on the participant to realigned (for instance) everything in cash and then perform a realignment of funds after the blackout. I've been through a couple of these as a participant and do not recall a time where something was done with no opportunity to me to avoid it. Good Luck!

It would seem appropriate to give each participant the option to override "2" or "3" in favor of their elections in option "1". Typically, the "2" and "3" you mentioned will be defaults that would happen in the absence of an affirmative election by the participant. Good Luck!

Yes. If the plan is not subject to ERISA, then none of the DOL required notices are necessary. Good Luck!

1) Of course. For his 'reasonable cause, he should state that he relied heavily on his TPA and they let him down 2) Don't think DFVC is an option once the penalty letter is issued by the IRS. Good Luck!

Which is generally why I design plans to have forfeitures pay plan expenses and used to reduce employer contributions. This, to me, it a plan design failure; especially if the plan is being billed based on the number of participants with accounts. The plan just got billed for 3 participant accounts that total $0.15 in assets. Whatever you decide, these accounts should be closed; even if you have to cut a check for $0.01. You should also consider potential changes in the plan design that would prevent this from happening again in the future. Good Luck!

Not 'presumably'. Many plan documents have been approved with this language That's an excellent point. You don't just decide you're going to automatically roll amounts less than 1000 over; you must follow the terms of your plan. Good Luck!

My first thought was 'Who told you that???' I guess Poje's answer would be more insightful Good Luck!

I have a plan where the auto rollover amount is down to zero. I was taken back by it at first, but it grew on me. I just hate when these BS Platforms make the distribution request form so convoluted that it serves as a deterrent from having the participant complete it for a distribution. But, from a operational perspective, you cannot go wrong. Once the participants at $5,000 are notified of their rights to a distribution (and of the rollover if no election is made), the job is done. It is often unfortunate to roll over $10 to an IRA that will ultimately get eaten up be fees, but that is neither here nor there (from an operational perspective). Good Luck!

Ditto on what Poje stated. You can go either way. You can say "6 months of elapsed time" or "6 months with a certain number of hours". If you go elapsed time, then the service spanning rules would apply. If you go with hours, then you may use any amount of hours (up to 1000), but would need to caveat that should you fail to meet that requirement, then you'll meet eligibility after working 1000 hours during 12 months. Another think to watch out for: Many documents give the requirement on the first try. Hence, if you fail to work the (let's say) 520 hours in the first 6 months, then you don't get another 6 month computation period. Going forward, you must work 1000 hours in 12 months to meet eligibility. It's very important to understand the language in your document and ensure it is consistently applied to the plan's operation. This will keep you away from a lot of trouble. Good Luck!

I knew it was more to it. If you have an issue with an Employer remaining a QSLOB, then why not keep vesting at 100% and merely provide a match based on immediate eligibility. I don't necessarily buy the "had they known they may receive a match, they would've deferred"; this seems to be an issue for safe harbor plans only. This would merely be a discretionary amendment put in place by December 31st. Good Luck!

So, you're failing 410(b) on the match? Why not remove the accrual requirements for receiving the match and leave eligibility as it is? I'm assuming you have a last day or hours requirement for the match; correct? If not, then how are you failing 410(b)?

Who is going to be an HCE? When you have immediate eligibility, then the only possible way an individual would wait 18 months to enter would be if they are an owner. Also remember, everything that is legal isn’t administratively feasible. What, exactly, are you trying to accomplish?

It seems to meet three standards: 1) It cannot be a cut-back 2) It cannot be discriminatory 3) It is executed by December 31st (17) Normally, I would say yes. I wouldn't dare to answer without know what else is going on. Typically, everyone is going to be an NHCE on their date of hire unless they are an owner (either directly or through attribution). So, you have a plan that allows immediate eligibility for match where it previously had an 18 month requirement. The prospective vesting schedule for matching contributions will be a 3 year cliff (where all match that is currently there is 100% vested). One point of contention may be employees who were already there a year (but less than 18 months) and forced to wait. Regardless of any amendment, they would seem to be entitled to 100% vesting (because they have already waited longer than a year for eligibility). Just illustrating how I would go about determining how to get from where you are (18 month eligibility with 100% vested) to where you want to be (Immediate Eligibility with 3 year cliff vesting). It may require a little more detail to show no adverse impact. Good Luck!

Could be. There is a provision in the B-Org analysis where 10% (or more) of the interest must be held by an HCE (and doesn't necessarily imply direct ownership). As a rule of thumb, I would NEVER attempt to perform any related employer group analysis without full details; even in situations where the analysis is a slam-dunk. [Heck, even Michael Jordan missed a few dunks in his career :-) ] Good Luck!

I agree. Basically, you're saying that there is no continuous requirement for work 1000 hours per year for plan eligibility. After initial eligibility, the only 1000 hour per year requirement would be an 'accrual requirement'; which does not exist for the ability to defer and for Top Heavy Minimums. Good Luck!

I don't agree and believe the 403(b) plan can include whatever provisions are available under a 403(b) plan. Either you're eligible or not. If you have a 401(k) plan that allows NHCEs only, and also have a 403(b) plan that excludes individuals eligible in the 401(k) plan, then it is what it is. Good Luck!

The "idea" may work, but you'd have to perform a detailed analysis of all the facts to ensure there isn't a related employer group with respect to all the rules. A part of this analysis would be ascertaining why the father's business doesn't already have a plan in place. Good Luck!

I'm not sure. These are really document driven questions; meaning the answers would depend on how the document is written. Many documents prescribe 'any reasonable method' for determining the earnings and would allow some flexibility. With that said, it's hard to give an answer that would help in your specific case. Good Luck!

Contributions are the "deposits" that were made during the year. There may be a deposit that was a receivable from the previous year that actually got deposited during the current year. That amount would've gotten some earnings. You're merely using algebra to assign a proportion share of the trust earnings to the excess amount. Good Luck!

Your provision is saying that the plan (and the 401(k) deferrals provision) is effective on January 1st, while deferrals will not be allowed until 11/15. So, eligibility for deferrals will be determined by the respective entry dates for that source (i.e. 1/1 $ 7/1 assuming semi annual); so that will be used to determine your eligibility for them. I don't see where it would be reasonable to use anything other than full year. Good Luck!