ETA Consulting LLC

Yep, just start reporting on the Form 5500SF. Good Luck!

If you terminated employment, then you have a 'distributable event'. In this case, your loan will be offset; which is an actual distribution. This would be eligible for rollover. Just a minor detail that is typically missed. Good Luck!

My first thought would be to explore how the recordkeeping system is set up and whether partial payments would be taken as long as they equate to a full payment every 3 months. For instance, if the quarterly payment is $1500, then an actual payment of $500 per month would meet that quarterly payment requirement. If the system is elaborate enough, the loan may be paid off a little early due to two of the 3 payments being expedited by the participant. I'm just throwing it out there as some commercial lenders to this. The loan modules on the recordkeeping system may or may not be developed enough to handle this. At any rate, it may be worth looking in to. Good Luck!

The DOL never really issued this type of safe harbor for large plans because of a lack of data pertaining to established business practices of larger companies. But, if you have a large company with a late deposit who clearly made late deposits of employee contributions (e.g. 2 months late), then what standard would you apply when trying to determine that day they 'should've been' deposited. I guess you could use the amount of time they customarily made those deposits (and it may be 4 days instead of 7); and that might result in an additional $4 being made in missed deposits. I guess what I'm trying to get at is when I typically challenge an approach that someone has taken on a correction, I would tend to do two things: 1) Demonstrate why their approach was not even reasonable; and 2) Demonstrate why the approach I endorse is better. I do this keeping in mind that we're not often working in a clear cut standard, but are instead applying a fix that we're ready to defend as reasonable. Good Luck!

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the ERISA actually protects her benefit. There is a 'bad boy rule', but that doesn't apply to salary deferrals or benefits that are vested under the maximum allowable vesting schedule (e.g. 6 year graded). It's been a long while since I read that rule. So, I'm not even sure if it's still applicable. Even then, the employee would've had 10 years of service. So, the bad boy rule would be a mute point. That aside, you may have a civil case and sue for damages. In all likelihood, those plan assets will remain protected; even should you win and get awarded millions from that individual. Good Luck!

I misread the question.

Actually, I think they do :-) Good Luck!

` I was under the impression that "NO" match at all was selected or allowed. Other than that, I agree with you; the most flexible options are best. Good Luck!

Incompetence. Total lack of vision. Good Luck!

I think so. Would help to verify against the EPCRS, but that QNEC should pull double duty in the same manner it would have had it been allocated within 12 months following year end. Good Luck!

Correct. It's a full 12 months. "IF" the plan year was actually shorter than 12 months, then you would prorate the integration level (typically, but not always the TWB). These types of terms are typically explained in your Plan's Document. Good Luck!

I "THINK" you may be confusing the 403(b) participant counting methodology with the 401(k). Just a thought. Good Luck!

RTFD! Good Luck!

Your question would've been a lot more interesting (e.g. more interestinger) had the balance of today been greater than $250K ($100K/.4). For consistency, you cannot impose a "1" when the calculation is based on ".4" and then turn around and extend based on that lower number. Interesting concept though. Good Luck!

Yes. There is a required aggregation of plans for Top Heavy purposes under certain conditions. These conditions fit into that standard. Good Luck!

You will 'eventually', if not 'immediately', have to test these plans together. Seeing is how they entered Controlled Group status, you must determine what transition relief applies. This is typically through the end of the year after the year they become members of the controlled group. Everything beyond that is basic 410(b) and 401(a)(4) testing. Good Luck!

I know this doesn't exactly speak to the technical issues, but I've become disheartened over the years seeing these plans installed and blown up in the first couple of years. I know many of the skilled consultants anticipate these types of issues during the plan design phase and implement plans that avoid these issues. Unfortunately, many do not. Just venting a little frustration.

They can prior to first becoming eligible. The key here is a hard-line distinction between merely choosing not to participate and not being eligible to participate (despite any choice). Good Luck!

I'm not sure about that one. The plan's SPD typically explains to participants what happens upon rehire. So, your question is what happens when someone verbally states a provision that is contradictory to the SPD (and plan document) which compels a participant not to contribute. As unfortunate as it is, I don't think there is an issue. Good Luck!

You have to determine whether or not they are "Key". Good Luck!

I don’t think there is a convenient way to fit it onto any of the preapproved documents. There should be a way to preserve the safe harbor by guaranteeing the match to the NHCEs while making it discretionary and subject to accrual requirements for the HCEs. I’d bet (though I might lose) that this type of language could get a favorable opinion letter/advisory letter. Good Luck!

I'm not sure I understand your question. A First Service Organization could be a corporation, partnership, or any other organization where the performance of services is the principle business. A professional service corporation must be a corporation; and that is the only type of corporation that can be a First Service Organization to an A-Org. I 'think' that's what you're getting at. Good Luck!

Correct. Just be sure to properly justify the balance split between two plans. In this case, it is easy since he has never received a contribution in the plan (deferral or otherwise) from Company B. But, to your point, you would not use any balance attributed to contributions from one employer in the top heavy determination for the other employer when the companies are not related. Good Luck!

He can't be a participant if he isn't eligible. Good Luck!

There is no 0% for anyone with greater than 1 year of service. Good Luck!