ETA Consulting LLC

He attains age 70 1/2 in 2013. The plan year ending in 2013 actually began 2/1/2012. He will be a 5% owner for these purposes and going forward. It's too late. Good Luck!

You may actually have a controlled group since the docs in Dr. Group A are considered as owning that 98%. Gotta love it when fact patterns change Good Luck!

Who killed JFK? Which came first, the chicken or the egg? How much after-tax basis is in the after-tax account of an employer sponsored plan? These three question have one thing in common; you're not going to get an answer. This is merely my weird way of framing the issue However, the plan sponsor had a responsibility to the participants over time to ensure their after-tax basis was properly tracked within the plan. A failure to do this adversely affects the participants; and there may be some liability issues should the participants pursue legal action. The employer's failure to do this on a wide scale shows that no recordkeeping process to track these amounts were in place when there should've been. Many recordkeeping software systems have a tracking field, but the company the sponsor hired likely didn't know how to use it; arguably creating a failure on the plan sponsors part to hire competent professionals. If I were a participant faced with potential 'double taxation", I'd seek recourse. The plan sponsor would likely seek recourse through the professional service they hired. This is all a civil issue and tends to be subjective in nature, but the IRS isn't "likely" going to accept an after-tax basis when there wasn't a tracking system. Good Luck!

Probably not. There would have to be "at least" some shared ownership. You'd want to ensure the "billing service" company doesn't not provide management services under 414(m) and does not fall under some type of "shared employee" arragement. What this is basically saying is that anyone can actually start a 'billing service' company and pick up the Doctor Group as their first client. You just have to ensure that there is a bona-fide employer-employee relationship between the billing service company and those employees (and they are not merely a smoke screen to hide the fact they are employees of the Doctor Group). Good Luck!

Sure. You'd alway make the deposit for the amount the Participant was entitled to under the terms of the plan. Be sure to maintain documentation since it is made after the fact. Correct, depending on the payrolls for which actual deferrals were made. When you give a payroll period match, you're only giving contributions during the periods for which deferrals are withheld from the employee's pay. In such plan design, it would behoove the employee to ensure he doesn't reach the 402(g) limit until the last payroll of the year in order to receive the SHMAC on his entire annual salary. Good Luck!

Primary Consulting in Charlotte, NC. Their website in Primaryjobs.com. Robert Brady is the owner; he's being doing this for over 20 years. May want to give him a look to see if he is a fit for what you're looking for. Good Luck!

You know, this is an interesting question. We know that when the plan files under DFVC, the IRS and PBGC agrees to accept that filing to the DOL at satisfying their penalties. It 'could' be argued that there is overall reciprosity among the agencies, but there appears to be only one way to find out; let us know how it works out for you

It does not apply as the Employer is the same. There's not a merging of two employers, but merely the same employer starting another operation. But, A would still have the use of a 21 & 1 provision for eligibility to give another year of maximum contributions at lower costs. Keeping everyone under 1000 hours per year may provide some additional flexibility. There may be other PR or employee relation issues, but things to consider. Good Luck!

No, but he can file one in the following year. Good Luck!

That's a stretch. It's not preventing eviction or foreclosure and, based on your fact pattern, it's not for the purchase of the new home (but to merely payoff the old one). I wouldn't do it. Good Luck!

Wondering if I can get them to "decrease" my assets in that fashion

I think I just broke my "LIKE" button from hitting it so hard I wanted to say this, or something to this extent, but the damage is already done. Good Luck!

Correct!

The problem here, Tom, is that both plans have safe harbor for ADP; so ADP is not a problem. While "B" has a safe harbor provision for ACP, it doesn't pass 410(b) as a stand alone plan; so the safe harbor provision is rendered ineffective. You're testing it with "C" since the safe harbor is rendered ineffective. The testing methods, then, are not inconsistent. Good Luck!

Well, technically, you are aggregating two plans that are safe harbor for deferrals and not safe harbor for match. The Safe Harbor for "B" is negated since "B" has failed the coverage ratio test. So, when you permissively aggregate with "C", you are effectively testing two like-kind plans. BRF is actually a 'relatively' low threshold to pass. So, you should be in good shape. Good Luck!

$15,850 plus $4,150 = $20,000 50% of $20,000 = $10,000 $10,000 minus $4,150 = $5,850. I get $5,850. Good Luck!

I would ask questions regarding the ESOPs QDRO procedures; whether they allow for immediate distribution. If so, then you know several things: 1) There is no 10% early withdrawal penalty for early distributions to QDROs. 2) Any amounts you receive from the plan will be eligible for rollover in order to avoid taxes. 3) Since this is an ESOP, you "may" take advantage of a Net Unrealized Appreciation (NUA) strategy, but this treatment will be contingent upon your husband's eligibility for a "LUMP SUM" distribution under the plan (e.g. Age 59 1/2, Severed from employment, death :-), or disability :-) No pun intended on the death or disability) There is much flexibilty here, so you'd really need to align with someone (perhaps a financial advisor) who knows what they are doing. Good Luck!

Now, we are getting somewhere; fact patterns are important. We know that the fail safe option isn't relevant because of the aforementioned dicussion. I would start by permissively aggregating B & C. We know that when you aggegate for one, you must aggregate for all. At any rate, you are still aggegating with respect to each testing requirement. After aggregation, the ADP should become a non-issue; since both share the exact provisions. When you aggregate for ACP, if a failure should exist, you could then distribute from both B & C since your safe harbor in B is invalid due to the failed coverage ratio test. I'd get Poje to verify the logic, but it appears pretty straight forward. Good Luck!

401(a)(9) is Required Minimum Distributions. 401(a)(17) is the dollar limit. The funds must be returned to the plan. If not, the participant's account should be made whole; especially since the calculated resulted in amounts being distributed to a party other than the participant. That would be my initial approach. Good Luck!

Okay, you are saying that "B" is failing the coverage ratio test, but not because of any accrual requirements. They are failing because of "class" exclusions; not covering the employees of "A", "C", and "D". Now, I see what you are asking. I am assuming, however, that A, C, and D does pass 410(b) as stand-alone plans; leaving plan "B" as your only problem. Notice from the document language you included "because of a failure to complete a specified number of hours". This is clearly not the case, so the fail safe would not apply. So, you could begin to permissively aggregate additional plans in order to get it to pass. Does this begin to move you in the right direction?

Is it a "standardized" or "non-standardized". There is a huge difference with major implications. Okay, which is it? It's hard to overlook this as your terminology appears to be inconsistent. If it is a standardized prototype, then that document doesn't contain a provision to exclude employees of other members of a controlled group. Operationally, as a rule, you are allowed to include a plan that passes coverage and non-discrimination on its own in a group to help another plan pass. You can do this by Permissively aggregating two plans without having to perform the average benefits test. I'm still unclear on the fact pattern. Good Luck!

This is a little off topic, but the deposit deadline for 415 appears to target one set of events while inadvertantly impacting others. When you determine why such a rule would exist, it could only be for purposes of preventing employers who make "windfall profits" during any given year from making tax deductible contributions based on prior years for which smaller profits were made. It basically draws a line in the sand. The IRS should issue new regulations expanding the types of contributions that aren't impacted by the rule. The "erroneous failure to allocate" provision appears to pre-date the safe harbors, so they should be updated to reflect more modern designs. May be a good recommedation for someone on the ASPPA GAC to push. It totally undermines everything ERISA when this provision gets interpreted in a way to preclude someone from receiving their safe harbor contribuiton because the terminated during the year (making the 415 limit in the following year zero due to no compensation)

Since the match is discretionary, you don't want to risk violating the definitely determinable formula rule by providing the discretionary amount for only part of the year. If you were going to discontinue the match at the end of the year, then no amendment would be required (since it's discretionary). To be safe, one approach may be to amend the formula to a fixed formula effective the first day of the current year and run the formula a month out; and then discontinue the match fixed formula. You may even provide a true-up. Obviously that would be overkill, but it would certainly be safe. Otherwise, you would appear stuck in the 'discretionary' formula that should be applied through the entire year. Just one approach. Good Luck!

It's still a service class definition for eligibility. The eligibility applies to each source of contribution. I think you've found the appropriate guidance. It's providing an indirect method of eliminating the age and service requirements. In my opinion, which is often debated, this is the primary reason behind the IRS's rule stating the allocation groups "must be reasonable". It, basically, nulls and notion of age and service (and 1000 hour accrual requirements) when you can arbitrarily define and group to provide the allocation to; irrespective of these requirements. It wouldn't surprise me if it were done, but I wouldn't do it. Good Luck!

You're saying the same thing. "IF" you believe you'll be in a higher tax bracket in the future, then you'd benefit more from the Roth Election. "IF" you believe tax rates will remain unchanged, then you're basically prepaying taxes (assuming you're forgoing that earnings on the taxes you just prepaid". "IF" you believe you'll enter a lower tax bracket when you begin to receive the distributions, then go pre-tax (this has actually been the premise of the 401(k) plans for some time); especially given the flexibility to control the rate at which you receive distributions. There is no one size fits all. Good Luck!