ETA Consulting LLC

I will never accept that as a word!!! We do agree! Never want to tail to wag the dog. We well planned service delivery will yield profits. When you fail to manage effective and efficient processes, you end up spending hours to correct something that would've only taken minutes to do. So, you're right. I agree with everything you said; except for the group of letters 'bigly' which I refuse to accept as a word

I see your point, but I wouldn't say that this is why MOST businesses fail. As for client satisfaction, I don't believe that is the standard we should be striving to achieve. I, personally, believe that when clients' expectations are properly managed, then satisfaction is the result. So, satisfaction is not the control mechanism. When it comes to managing clients' expectation, this is where the skill and expertise come into play. Clients will always grow to appreciate someone who is consistent in performing timely and accurate work that ultimately alleviates stress. On the contrary, clients will reject situations where billing is the only thing done in a timely fashion. Again, I see your point. I just believe that in the service industry (which this is), if the relationship is not a win-win, then it is incumbent on the service provider to ascertain why that is and make the appropriate decision. This may result in the service provider (who actually has the luxury ), to decline to accept a case. At the same time, there may be hundreds of service providers standing in line and will do well. There's an old saying 'One man's trash is another man's treasure'. Your success, as with anything, will ultimately depend on making a decent living doing work that you enjoy. That's going to require clients (for the business owner), but also the 'wins' that are achieved and verified when clients give you positive feedback. Ultimately, we agree. I'm sure we've seen in all. I just don't believe the game is lost merely because you missed a few baskets. Good Luck!

Man, you read my mind. There is a big difference in high touch personal service and routine run-of-the-mill operations of large corporations. Just an observation. To my clients, their stress is my problem; regardless of who failed to do what. Welcome to entrepreneurship; you eat what you kill Let me clarify.... This is not being crass, but merely pointing out that many clients love being in contact with someone who actually knows what they're doing and not giving them a lot of run around. We have many 'heavy-hitters' here who I'm sure provide the highest level of expertise and service. It's a combined passion of what you do and providing reliable services for a fee. It's a different game from the 9 to 5 when you're starting your own practice. Good Luck

You know, this is an excellent question. I've never gotten to this level in my analysis over my 22 years in the industry. My analysis has always been explaining to a doctor why the 403(b) at the hospital needed to aggregated with his SEP from his self-employment. I actually never encountered a situation that forced me to answer this; shame on me :-) I do know the slam dunks are the controlled groups, but not sure if it goes beyond that. So, you have an excellent question; who is in control of the non-profit? I'll probably get around to researching this since my curiosity is now piqued Good Luck!

Isn't the $25 per day limited to $750 or some drastically lower amount? I admit that I often find myself re-verifying (my new word ) the amounts, but I certain the maximum fine under the delinquent filer problem is relatively low. Plus, you get to combine many years under a single (maximum fee). Good Luck!

I was typing as Spiritrider posted. Spirit rider makes an interesting point. I remember there being an issue of being in control; so this should be verified. I think the difference is still on Lou's comment "in this case". This left the door open to considering what Spiritrider is saying, but acknowledging that it does depend on the circumstances. Good Luck!

Lou S. I think I agree with you; especially with (in this case), but am not sure about your cite. The issue of determining whether or not the 403(b) is aggregated with the profit sharing plan of the non-profit is determining whether or not the 403(b) participant is actually in control of the non-profit organization. So, I agree with Lou, but this needs to be spelled out. If I work as a doctor in a hospital and am covered by their 403(b) plan, then I (the doctor) am considered in control of that 403(b) contract. Therefore, that 403(b) contract would be aggregated with my own SEP (for other self employment work); and not treated as a plan of the hospital. Now, that hospital and turn around and also sponsor a 401(k) plan, and I (the doctor) and get an entirely separate 415 limit. However, if I am actually in control of that hospital, then that 403(b) contract is consider a plan of me (the individual) and the hospital for which I am in control. Therefore, no double 415 limit for me. But, if I merely an employee in the hospital (or non-profit) who is not in control, then I may actually max out their 403(b) and their 401(k). I just think this was worth spelling out in detail. Good Luck!

I've actually consulted many Financial Advisors while managing a Qualified Plan Consulting team inside of an Advanced Markets Department of a Life Insurance Company. [[Try to figure that one out :-) ]] So, while my expertise is qualified plans, I've gotten this question at least 100 times during my tenure. Here's how I broke it down into layman's terms: A qualified plan (or IRA) gives you three distinct tax advantages: 1) Tax deduction on Contributions; 2) Tax Deferral on the gains; and 3) Retirement Income (where there is a reasonable certainty that you'll receive the benefit in the future. When it's not a qualified plan, then you're going to lose at least one of these three. With life insurance, you get income tax deferral on the gain (and it may be used to fund a retirement), but there is no authority for taking a tax deduction on the contributions. For a while, 419(e) plans were marketed to make tax deductible contributions and invest all proceeds in life insurance for the tax deferral on the gains (under the auspices of providing welfare benefits), but that was quickly shot down by the IRS as [[[another method to receive an income tax deduction on the purchase of life insurance - among other things]]] So, the short answer to you as given to many advisors in the past, you're never going to make life insurance come remotely close to functioning like a qualified plan. If there was a way to do it, I'd still be working for a Life Insurance Company selling the strategy :-) Good Luck!

It's perfectly allowed since these after-tax contributions would be limited by only 415 and ACP. Since he's the only person, then 415 it is. So, he can contribute after-tax contributions up to the maximum limit and immediately rollover into a Roth IRA for inflated funded of the Roth. Good Luck!

Thank you! I was actually getting ready to make that clarification, but you already made it. I was actually trying to decide how to articulate it, but you did it exceptionally well :-) I was thinking "being excluded from the plan doesn't necessarily make you excludable from testing"; but that would've muddied the waters even more without the additional "age/service or statutory excludable" language :-) Good Luck!

I think this is worth repeating. There is no requirement that you have 5 years of participation, but merely the 5th anniversary of when you first participated. Participation each year (or for 5 years) is not the requirement. Good Luck!

True and false. True that you won't have a coverage issue, but you don't want to overlook the non-discrimination issue (which is a slightly different standard). BRF must be currently and effectively..... blah, blah, blah. You can permissively aggregate two plans and pass coverage, but run into a problem with a nondiscriminatory rate of match. 415 requires automatic aggregation of DC plans. But when given an allocation (let's say 4%) on Compensation from two distinct members of a controlled group (Let's assume $250K from each Company); then that $10,000 to each plan will not violate 415 or any nondiscrimination test when each plan passes on its own merits. The moment you permissively aggregate (which is not ABT), then you must also aggregate for BRF; which gives you a $20,000 allocation on $265K in Compensation (which is a 7.54% rate of match where the highest possible rate for all your NHCEs is 4%. I think this is where you have issues. Just as a side note: I typically never let my testing go this far. When consulting my clients on plan design, I try to stay as far away from the ledge as possible (to avoid the possibility to ever going this far). In theory, you may get anything to pass if you pay someone to take testing far enough, but that's not a set of services I try to sell. I admit, this is neither here nor there, but I wanted to make that point. As for this discussion, however, I think it helps to work it through and determine how a potential workaround may run into additional issues as you work through the testing process. Good Luck!

Yes, but at the testing level; and not likely within the allocation level of each plan. You may have two distinct companies that pay you $200K each and provide you a 10% allocation. That would be fine since it's only $40k toward your 415 limit. But, the moment you have to combine for 410(b), you'd it problems. You'd end up with a $40K allocation tested against a $265k 401(a)(17) limit. When dealing with separate companies, I don't think allocations actually stop once Compensation reaches the 401(a)(17) limit, but you're limiting your testing Compensation to that amount; which would only come into play when you aggregate the plans. Good Luck

You always start with 410(b). Let's suppose you have this one owner with Company A and Company B. Company A has 9 NHCEs and Company B has 9 NHCEs. The one owner is the only HCE. Your coverage would look like this: Company A : 100% HCE and 50% NHCE < 70% so it fails. Company B : 100% HCE and 50% NHCE < 70% so it fails. So, when you combine for 410(b), then you must combine for all plan purposes; and this is where you would experience your problem. If nothing else, you'd have a discriminatory rate of match when testing against compensation limited by 401(a)(17). Good Luck!

It should be, provided that they were from an approved CPE provider. All my providers report the credits directly to the IRS. There "may" be providers who are approved, but do not directly report. I don't know the specifics of your situation, but would encourage you to do whatever to get a solid understanding of how the process works and use that understanding to keep your ERPA current at all costs. It's not like you can go out and buy another one :-) Good Luck!

Don't get me started. There isn't an algorithm created that can perform accurate HCE determinations in all instances. Case in point: Father owns 4% of a company. His son owns 1%. His daughter owns 1%. His brother owns the other 94%. No one makes 6 figures. The father and his brother are the only HCEs. I haven't found a recordkeeping software that could solve this 'one in a million' analysis to come up with the right determination. At the end of the day, I feel much better knowing the few rules that I do know and not merely being a computer operator. Just thinking out loud :-)

Thank you Tom and Mike. Before the employer actually follows through on the 7% to a single division, run the Coverage Ratio Test to see if it would pass. If not, then explore alternatives (i.e. provide the 7% to only the NHCEs in that division; maybe include additional HCEs one at a time up to the limit). Never think for the client, but educate them on the rules and their potential alternatives. Good Luck!

That may be a good thing :-) I remember those days in the late 80s where I would increase the font size just to meet the size requirements, because I've already ran out of words :-) That was nearer (closer to) the beginning of the word processors and Apple Macintosh packages that allowed these types of manipulations (making typewriters obsolete) :-) Having to cut words down makes every sentence more powerful :-) Just limit your drill downs and keep the overall focus on how the legislation has developed the private pension industry into what it is today. Just a thought. Good Luck!

I was missing some certificates from years back and began to freak out; especially with testing for the ERPA not being available anymore. It's a license that I now guard with my life. I'm thinking about having a living will in place stating that should I become incapacitated, keep my ERPA active! :-) Anyway, I went through the runaround and called in to the IRS; and the individual on the line pointed me to this PTIN link; and all my CE was listed :-) So, I don't know Cynchbeast's story, but I do know how alarming it could be. To your point, I would've been up Sh*t Creek without a paddle had they not been reported :-) I'm actually about to freak out imagining what could've been as I write this. Good Luck!

If I had to write such a paper, I would use a broad scope. I would write about the environment prior to ERISA (with the IRS and DOL often in disagreement on various issues). Then, with ERISA, Title I dealt with Participant Rights, Title II amended the Internal Revenue Code. Title III appropriated responsibilities between the DOL and IRS (DOL having purview over Title I issues) and IRS with Tax issues. Title IV created the PBGC. You than then speak to some times that are covered under both the DOL and IRS (i.e. Exclusive Benefit rule in Title I is virtually same as Section 401(a)(2) of IRC. Anti-assignment is same as Section 401(a)(13). Prohibited Transactions is in Section 4975 of IRC. So, while they each have their respective areas of enforcement, there is still areas of overlap; where either one may hit you over the head for a single issue :-) That would make for a good paper; I'd read it. Good Luck!

I check my CPE for ERPA under the IRS PTIN system. All of your credits over the years are reported there. https://rpr.irs.gov/datamart/mainMenuUSIRS.do Good Luck!

That wasn't my point. My point was the ensure you read the plan's language carefully and determine if your interpretation is the only reasonable interpretation. Just a random case to illustrate a need to read the plan: Suppose you have a plan provision that limits deferrals to 10% of Plan Compensation per year. Let's also suppose that for the first 6 months a participant has deferred zero. This would mean that such participant may defer up to 20% (or whatever) for each payroll until his annual amount equates to 10% of his year to date Plan Compensation. Would you say this is a reasonable interpretation of that provision? My point is not on the IRS's position or anything other than reading the plan to ensure there is a legitimate failure to follow the plan's terms regarding your provision in question. Good Luck!

Could it be that the truth is in this typo? Assess. Lol

I would be looking for a new recordkeeper, regardless of small or large. It it the same routine for testing a large plan and a small plan. When a large plan fails ADP, however, those corrective distributions can get pretty steep; and the 10% penalty goes up. Plan Sponsors really have to asses what they're paying for. It's too often the case where they pay these large companies to tell them what they're not going to do. But, hey, these are the types of service failures that often present chances for me to pick up a new client. Good Luck!

I'm not sure this isn't splitting hairs. I'm not sure how the plan reads and don't have access to a BPD at the moment. I would begin with the following premise and then see if the plan's language contradicts it (remember interpretations must merely be reasonable; or not arbitrary and capricious): The plan limits deferrals as a certain percentage of Compensation (i.e. 100% or lower). Compensation is defined to exclude certain amounts. At year end, eligible Compensation for deferral purposes is $18,000. The participant deferred $18,000. What's the problem? You're interpreting the plan to say that you cannot actually defer dollars from amounts that are from those sources (i.e. Overtime). Would it be reasonable to say deferrals are limited to eligible Compensation for the year (and eligibile Compensation merely excludes those amounts?) It's basically applying the same methodology for making deferrals after your Compensation actually exceeds the 401(a)(17) limit. Again, I don't have current access to a document and asking if this would be a reasonable interpretation of the way your plan is written. Also, verify who has the responsibility for interpreting the plan's provisions. Good Luck!