ETA Consulting LLC

If the SIMPLE IRA is withdrawal restricted in the first two years, then the money being rolled into it will become withdrawal restricted as well. So, it wouldn't make much sense to roll money into the SIMPLE IRA until it comes out of withdrawal restriction. Good Luck!

There is no change in vesting required. Not sure how and why the document would mandate one when the existing schedule already satisfies top heavy. My PPA document doesn't even address "when the plan becomes top heavy" as the existing schedules already meet the requirement. Good Luck!

The whole idea, from a DOL perspective, is that amounts withheld from employee pay (due to deferrals, loan repayments, or whatever) that is to be directed to the plan becomes a plan asset at the time they are withheld. There isn't anything in IRS rules that would seem to suggest that, but it's a moot point. The underlying idea is that plan assets belong in the plan and amounts withheld from employee pay should be deposited to the plan's trust as soon as administratively feasible. Not sure if that opens itself up to asking 'how much time do we have'; there's not really a hard-fast answer. Good Luck!

Did you restate for PPA? Good Luck!

You could. I would imagine the only point of contention would be the potential of creating an amendment that would take your document out of pre-approved status. I cannot see that happening with a corrective amendment. Keep in mind that a restatement does necessarily involve a change in the plan's terms; it's merely writing the plan to a new document. With that said, it wouldn't be any issue to restate a document going back to 1/1/2018, because there is no change in the language. Then, you would've have to worry about the corrective amendment having an effective date prior to the effective date of your document. (Not saying that it would be necessary to do that, but may provide for a more consistent reading of plan terms if you're moving from one document to the next.) Good Luck!

Nope. Good Luck!

Get the money back into the plan. Good Luck!

I'm thinking that part of the VCP process is to explain to the IRS how you plan to locate and notify former participants. How was that question answered? I normally don't answer a question with a question, but it seems as if the approach you're seeking should've been submitted under that VCP application that was approved. Good Luck!

Yes, if it's prepared on an accrual basis. Good Luck!

The plan can be written to exclude any group of employees as long as they pass the appropriate test; 410(b) in this case. But, whatever you're doing, it should be reflected in the plan's language; it should not be an arbitrary decision. Not sure what you're asking. I'm feeling there may be some missing details. Good Luck!

The details are not exactly relevant to the QDRO process, but it is a process. A is a Domestic Relations Order issued by the court to the Plan; and is then Qualified upon review and acceptance of the Plan Administrator. Nothing within this 'process' would depend on the consent of the Participant. I'm not sure how that fits in to everything you just stated. Good Luck!

I'm merely speculating on what 'may have happened'. Obviously, the only way to know for sure is to read the document carefully. The plan may have contained a provision which expressly allowed for partial lump sums. During the PPA Restatement cycle (when the new adoption agreements were drafted), the language allowing for the partial lump sums may have been hard-coded into the plan's provisions (and not a check box). If the person reading the plan isn't skilled enough to read the caveats, then they may miss it. Unfortunately, this boils down to having someone read the document to account for the change. I can see a situation where years ago it was clear partial lump sums were allowed due to a specific box being checked. Now, when there is no box, the individual at the plan provider's office is not reading the entire section of that adoption agreement. My firm uses the DGEM document from ASCI. For those of you using the same document, take a moment to look at how that section changed from EGTRRA to PPA. This is merely one possibility of what you're dealing with. In order to help us possibly help you, ask them who is there document provider. If they say ASCi, then I'd be willing to bet that this is the issue. Good Luck!

Just a little additional insight; that's not really applicable in this case. The age 55 is 'within the calendar year' the participant turns 55 and not necessarily the actual age. For instance, the participant can terminate employment on January 1, 2018 while not turning age 55 until December 31, 2018 and still get exempted from the 10% excise penalty. The same is NOT true for the age 59-1/2 distribution. In that case, you must actually reach the date which is 6 months after your 59th birthday. Good Luck!

There is an 'erroneous failure' provision within the 415 Regulations that you could argue to open the window between October 15th and December 31st for having them treated as annual additions for 2017. If it were actually required by the plan and not made, how would that not be an erroneous failure? I just don't see a situation where a 'no contribution' to a participant would be preferable over simply making the deposit and moving on. Good Luck!

Nope. Nope. Not related. Nope. No way. The top heavy determination date would be the last day of the first plan year and would not include the rollover. Good Luck!

I would say that it must be made by 12/31/2018. Doesn't appear to be deductible for the 2017 year since it is likely past the tax filing deadline (including extensions). I would also say "no" to lost earnings as the contribution is being made within the 12 month period. Good Luck!

If you can get the language fitted onto the document, then you can do whatever you want. It's easy to draft a plan to allow union employees to defer while making them ineligible for match. It may get a little tricky when you try to draft the plan to provide for the discretion to apply separately to each group. Good Luck!

Without researching it directly, there is a difference between a transfer (where the Employer is the decision making authority for the movement of the funds) and a rollover (where it is solely the participant making the decision). I didn’t read the PLR, but would look for that distinction. Good Luck

I would, respectfully, disagree. A rollover, by definition, takes on the characteristics of the plan it is rolled in to. This may sound dumb that I would is this as the basis of my argument, but that rollover (by that same definition) would be the equivalent of rolling into an IRA and then into the plan. I think the rollover loses its relation to the plan; and this is despite the fact it is rolled into the same plan. Good Luck!

It was in the title: "SEP Sponsored by ineligible employer."

Which was it; a SEP or a SIMPLE IRA? Details are important.

The 403(b) plan has several advantages over a 401(k). Not sure what is being asked. The "Employer" isn't required to do anything. IF the Employer chooses to adopt on to the PEO's plan, then they would need to "adopt the PEO's plan", but that's a decision the Employer would make. Again, not sure what you're asking. Good Luck!

Like you, I think this request is against everything I understand about the EZ and the requirements to file another form. Good Luck!

At the end of the day, you will do well if you know the rules and how they are applied: Question: A company is owned as follows: Tom owns 94.0% Dave owns 4% Dave's son owns 1% Dave's daughter owns 1% Tom draws a salary of $200,000 per year. Dave draws a salary of $80,000 per year. Dave's son and daughter each draws a salary of $120,000.00 per year. Who are the HCE's in the 4 person company? Why? [Note: Ceteris Paribus]

Unless the plan is designed to count service for the temp, then you'd count only their date of hire for the plan sponsor (the date they actually leave the temp agency to work for the plan sponsor). Now, once any of these employees work for the plan sponsor on 'substantially a full-time basis' for 12 months, then they are defined as 'Lease Employees' and you must begin to account for them. Until they meet the definition of 'Leased Employees' (or until they are actually hired on by the plan sponsor), they will be treated like employees of the temp agency. Good Luck!