ETA Consulting LLC

Sure. You would want age/service requirements of 21 & 1 Year (which should exclude the common law employee who is working less than 1000 hours). When you do this, however, you must ensure that the owner actually worked at least 1000 hours during any previous period to meet the eligibility requirement you established. Pretty straight forward. Good Luck!

Using him would seem to be pretty aggressive. Math rules would state that a zero in the denominator is undefined. Since 0/0 is not defined, how could you use zero Compensation in the ADP test; your result in not defined. Good Luck!

That would appear to be an expense of the investment; and should reduce the return on the investment. For instance, if the property is valued at "X", then the price of landscaping and maintenance should be reflected in that value. You would presume that the value would be less without it. That wouldn't necessarily reflect on the plan's report; except as a transfer to that investment from cash. That's is how I would treat it. Good Luck!

If the contribution was discretionary, then I don't know about the part of having a contribution removed. Typically, the most conservative approach would be to true-up to the highest percentage. Obviously, if that would "break the bank", then you might attempt to get the correction approved through VCP. There is an argument that may be made that once you allocate a contribution to a participants account that is consistent with the terms of the plan, then the attempt to remove would be a cutback. Good Luck!

I 'think' he would be allowed to do the greater of 1 & 2 and it still be safe harbor. There wouldn't be any flexibility as it would be the greater of two safe harbor formulas. Good Luck!

I don't think I would be fine with saying that you cannot defer tips. I did some reading on this about 10 years ago. There has to be a process put in place to allow for a server to defer their tip income; an obvious exception to the rule stating that you may not defer from Compensation you've already received. Good Luck!

You can restate a plan with an effective date prior to 2010 (i.e. 1/1/2007) if you like; as long as the "Restatement" doesn't involve a change in the actual written plan terms during that period. A "restatement" doesn't involve an amendment; it is only the drafting of the written plan onto a new document. An "Amendment", however, is an actual change of the plan's written provisions. This is where a retroactive date may become an issue; if you were actually changing a plan provision. As a safety precaution, I would state with a forward date (e.g. January 1, 2015) in the event I accidentally change a plan provision. Doing this would ensure a compliance issue isn't 'automatically' created. But, I never sweat it in the event I restate with a retroactive date; as I take the time to ensure there aren't any change in the plan's actual provisions when doing so. Good Luck!

I don't think "original" signatures are necessary. A full scanned copy of the document should suffice. Every document I ever sent to the IRS or DOL was a copy. Good Luck!

Benefits, Rights, and Features must be currently and effectively available on a non-discriminatory basis. Whatever those BRF are, they would, typically, be authorized under the written terms of the plan. I would love to see the plan language that determines who is allowed to invest their account balances in brokerage accounts; especially the part about having the determination based on criteria that has nothing to do with the plan. I think this is the point that BG5150 is making. Good Luck!

Unfortunately not. Typically, foregoing the exemption on the 10% penalty is something that is vetted prior to requesting a distribution from the plan. Once a bonafide distribution request is made and a distribution is paid out pursuant to that request, there wouldn't appear to be any allowable exceptions to what Fidelty is saying. Now, it would be much different had Fidelty issued a distribution contrary to what was requested. Good Luck!

Not understanding the fact pattern. Here's what I have: 1) Client desires to terminate their current plan and start another one. 2) They are being told that if they terminate this plan, they may not establish another one within 12 months following the final distribution from the current plan. 3) The TPA is using that as a reason to encourage the client to continue to keep the plan they currently have. Does this sum it up? What I'm missing is whether the client intends to start of new plan; or is this a mere objection created by the broker saying you cannot start another one should you terminate.

If the plan is "terminated" at any time before the payroll date, then no deferrals should be withheld from pay. If the plan is terminated any time after the payroll date, then those deferrals are made under the current written terms of the plan (and are plan assets at the time they are withheld from pay; at least in the DOL's perspective). Good Luck!

The issue goes to determining whether the cost is 'reasonable'. The argument would be that the plan should not pay the cost for the Sponsor's mistake. VCP usually involves an oversight or error on someone's part. Good Luck!

$750 flat. You're using schedules 1 & 2. Good Luck!

I'm assuming it was a defined benefit plan. In the plan, I believe he was entitled to a stream of payments that would've otherwise been paid to his first spouse. In the event of his untimely death, those benefits should be paid to his estate. Now, if this were a Defined Contribution plan, then the answer would be easy. The account balance that was separated for his benefit would by payable to his estate upon his death. From your fact pattern, it sounds as if he was otherwise entitled to a stream of payments that would not end until the stream ends; which would be when his first spouse passes away. The easiest approach would be to pose this question to the Plan Administrator: Ask them how was the entitlement calculated or determined. Is it an offset from a stream of payments being paid to his first spouse? If so, then when would this payment end? If it were to end at his death, then there should be a balance available as he did not actually start his annuity payments. No way to know without details from the plan administrator. Hope this helps; but a Defined Benefit expert may be more equipped to address the alternatives for DB plans. Good Luck!

The 419 plan is, typically, a welfare benefit plan. Unlike retirement plans, there is virtually no certainty that the benefits will ever be received. For instance, in a 401(k) plan, you know you're going to get your benefit at some point in the future; even if given to your beneficiary. That is the nature of a retirement plan. A welfare benefit plan is different, in that you may qualify for a benefit under the items covered; and a mere severance from employment is not one of them. I'm not sure if your case involves an AF(6) or a (e). But, this merely a broad understanding. Good Luck!

There is an argument that could be made that those additional amounts would constitute employer contributions and subject to 415 testing. I'm not saying that I would make the argument, but merely acknowledging that such an argument can be made. Good Luck!

No. It would, likely, be easier to continue the SIMPLE IRA throughout the remainder of 2014 and start the Safe Harbor 401(k) with an effective date of January 1, 2015. Each participant in the SIMPLE IRA will have total control over their individual accounts. So, for 401(k) purposes, don't anticipate a transfer. Obviously, there are limitless sets of circumstances where one thing or another may happen, but this is likely your most streamlined method. Good Luck!

I do it all the time. You're right, though. You will have to anticipate what, if anything, additional the IRS may require you to do. In my cases, I received the signed Compliance statement from the IRS at the later date with no additional action. If there were additional action, I did not anticipate it having a great impact on that terminated and distributed plan. In my instance, they are pretty much streamlined corrections; so the chance of the IRS coming back requiring additional changes was nil. Good Luck!

Severance Comp is "NEVER" included in plan Compensation. When determining whether Compensation is Severance Comp, timing means nothing, it's Compensation paid for the employee to leave. Had he stayed, he wouldn't have received it. Plan Compensation must be compensation you worked for (or deemed to have worked for, i.e. vacation and holiday pay). Severance Comp is money paid for you leave and stop working. Does the differentiation make sense? Good Luck!

That is still the question. Even though the plan does not require a year of service for eligibility, the plan still has a definition of what a year of service is. This is what you would use. Good Luck!

Sure. There are no rules that preclude it; as long as the document doesn't contain language to disallowing it. Good Luck!

I think it's Section 502 of ERISA that gives the participant a right to bring civil action. I think it steps further into a fiduciary role for a recordkeeper to take it upon themselves to not to follow the plan administrator's instruction given consistent with the plan terms to split the account. I wouldn't want to be in that position. Good Luck!

Yep. Very Very Very small. I needed a magnifying glass to see it.

Well, to Austin's point, I cannot fathom a situation where anything would be needed (or required) from the participant in order to act on a Domestic Relations Order that has been Qualified by the Plan Administrator. That would be to presume the participant has control that he does not have. The quickest way to show that is to reference the plan's written QDRO procedures; which will likely say nothing about a required action from the participant. Good Luck!