ETA Consulting LLC

Isn't is merely the equivalent of having not filed the return? A regular DFVC filing for all years to include the submission should suffice. Arguably, a corrected filing to a large plan "may" work since the 5500SF was filed timely, but I wouldn't necessarily try to make that argument. Good Luck!

"Like"! Good perspective.

"Like". I also "like" BG5150's comment. In many instances, a question often results from a larger unresolved issue. I'm not saying the plan has a $1,000 forceout provision, but merely commending the thought of posing the relevant question

Not sure about the fact pattern. A trust account is a trust account is a trust account. It is possible for a plan to maintain several accounts that are part of the same "trust"; especially in instances where current deposits are invested pursuant to investment elections on deposits into one trust account while there is another account that maintains another balance. The key is to flowchart a smooth operation that provides for the transfer of the assets while continuing to meet all other regulatory requirements (e.g. blackout rules and separation 'from employer assets' of amounts withheld from employee pay). Whenever someone makes a statement of "what they are NOT going to do", they should at least be able to articulate the applicable rules and provide a detailed understanding of how they intend to assist the plan in meeting those rules. Not saying, right or wrong, but there is something to be said when organizations provide hard-line approaches without communicating a fundamental understanding of the rules. I've never seen this. Good Luck!

Sure! At the very least, you'd need to test the after-tax contributions under the ACP test. You can have a SH 401(k) provision, but it won't cover the EE After-tax contributions. Good Luck!

They receive it (to the extent it is vested). They are entitled to the match as it is given pursuant to the plan's match formula. All the ACP does is test whether the match is allowed to remain in the plan. Good Luck!

I would say no. The ABT is under IRC 401(a)(4). The only reference to Section 401(a) of the IRC for 403(b) plans would be when the employer actually funds "Employer Contributions" to the contract (Plan). Good Luck!

In many instances, it can't. This is what makes recordkeepers different. At the end of the day, we must realize that Relius (or any other recordkeeping software) is merely a tool. It's not programmed to do everything. Sometimes, it requires individual judgement to ensure the correct determinations are made. Also, I believe payroll software does a better job of tracking hours during different computation periods. Just my $0.02.

One year is calculated as the date of hire through the day before the one year anniversary; not the date of hire through the one year anniversary. January 1 through December 31 is a year while January 1 through January 1 is a year and a day. If a person is hired on July 1st, 2011 then his year is satisfied on June 30th, 2012 of the following year. The day AFTER his one year is July 1, 2012. There are only 365 days in a year (366 in a Leap Year); not 366 days in a year (367 in a leap year). Good Luck!

You "may" not have a problem. You must distinguish between "permissive aggregation" of plans and the ABT (which requires all plans of the employer to be tested together). I don't see an problem with permissively aggregating two non-elective sources and also permissively aggregating two 401(m) sources. Once you do, you must aggregate those plans for all testing purposes. The only thing that would normally preclude you from permissively aggregating plans would be mandatory disaggregation (i.e. union and non-union). That does not appear to be the case here. Good Luck!

There are two distinct distributable events from a 401(k) plan: 1) Severance from employment (notice that this is contrasted from the old 'separation from service' that gave us the same desk rule). 2) Plan Termination. If the employees terminate employment, then it doesn't matter that they are employed with another company working at the same desk. However, in this instance, you are terminating the 401(k) plan; so that should be the only distributable event needed to transact the rollovers. Good Luck!

That appears to be all you can do since it crossed a tax year. "In some instance", when these things are done within a year, you can offset the amount against additional funds being submitted to the IRS. This becomes more difficult after the year end reports were balanced and filed with the IRS; leaving your suggestion the only 'apparent' reasonable approach. Good Luck!

There isn't a CE requirement for a PTIN. You don't have to pass any tests to obtain it, so there wouldn't be any continuing education requirement. The ERPA, on the other hand, would require annual CE. Good Luck!

No. Yes. Yes. Good Luck!

The initial requirement for QSLOB is at least 50 employees in each. Good Luck!

Me Too! Yes, in that any company can set up and maintain a qualified plan. Part of the qualification rules is that the plan must satisfy the non-discrimination requirements each year. This type of setup will, obviously, fail since you're benefiting only one HCE and zero NHCEs. 410(b), 401(a)(4), 414(b), 1563 :angry: Good Luck!

Possibly, but it would still need to be referenced from within the document. Even in the case of loans, the actual written document references the loan policy. Normally, prototypes are written to limit the number of distributions per year. If not, then it may be best to wait until the next round of restatements (to incorporate the limit). Good Luck!

I cannot think of a situation where a retroactive amendment to conform to an operation could be done without VCP. There may be one, but I'm just not aware of it. Hence, I think you're limited to a VCP submission. Good Luck!

I don't think there is. 403(b) plans aren't referenced anywhere in the plan that are subject to Top Heavy under IRC Section 416. We know that 403(a) annuities are, but these are qualified plans. Good Luck!

No. The 5500-SF and other filings are for plans subject to ERISA. The 5500-EZ is only for a plan that is not subject to Title I of ERISA. Good Luck!

I think they would complete a separate Schedule C for each business. I am assuming there was an analysis to conclude they are, in fact, a controlled group. Good Luck!

At the end of the day, it is still a "Cash" or Deferred Arrangement. The additional Compensation would do nothing but increase the actual amount of "cash" he would defer. In the event there isn't any additional cash as he approaches his deferral election, then nothing would be deferred. It may be a good idea to advise the participant of this effect when those additional amounts are going to hit payroll; and have the participant to change their election accordingly. Good Luck!

I don't know. Was it "Trustees of the Southern Illinois Carpenters Welfare Fund v. RFMS, et al ? Good Luck!

If the hospital is 100% owned by the health system, then the hospital, itself, should be considered as a Controlled Group for purposes of any Qualified Plans. However, the hospital, since it is not a charitable non-profit (under 501©(3)), it would not be eligible to participate in any 403(b) plan sponsored by the health system. The 410(b) rules, however, would appear to apply for "Non-elective or matching contributions". Note of caution: I'm aware that controlled group rules for non-profits are determined base the percentage of the board members that are shared by the non-profits as there is no ownership. I don't think this rule applies here because you are looking at an organization here is the 'actually owned' by the non-profit. I would urge to consider this when attempting to solidify your determination (I just didn't take time to revisit the rule, "Yet"). Good Luck!

Well, the POA needed to be valid only at the time the distribution was requested. Assuming the check was issued before the participant died, then it would appear to become part of the decedent's estate, similar to any other asset (i.e. checking account or lawn mower). Even if the 1099 R is issued in the name of the participant in January, the process is complete an the taxable income to the participant is on an asset that may or may not have reached his checking account. If anything, I'd attempt to re-write the check to the participant's estate (for that check only) with any other balance in the plan being inherited to his beneficiary under the plan. Good Luck!