Bri

I think we're really illustrating the distributive property: 3% x (pay 1 + pay 2 + pay 3 + ... + pay 52) = (3% x pay 1) + (3% x pay 2) + ... + (3% x pay 52)

I'm under the impression that if you get the 5500-EZ out by December 31, 2019, they'll let you use the 2018 form, but if the calendar flips to 2020 then you have to wait for the IRS to release the 2019 form.

Well, what rate would you deem him to benefit at?

I would think it's 180 days on the high end for 402f purposes these days, no?

And the participants should be issuing their checks to the PLAN rather than the company. Certainly a company that big has checking accounts for its plans and would never mingle plan assets with their general assets.

Perhaps not, although the relative facts and circumstances are always in play. That usual 20% rule of thumb seems not to be a problem, though.

Match and nonelective weren't late, unless there's an operational error based on text in the plan document requiring those deposits to be made immediately.

I think that's all you can do - let the employees know the safe harbor rules can't apply, but you will keep the match you already got. (Does the other-allowable match come with a vesting schedule, though? May want to amend to fully vest the amounts already gone in erroneously, if you have the ability to track it.) --Bri (another BG who happens to love the 5150 VH album, and likes Bart but not to the point of making him my avatar!)

On the bright side, if the payroll was run for Christmas, you may be able to argue the "lateness" of the deposit didn't start until early January 2018, so this could be one year's 5330 instead of two to prepare.

Well, termination of employment is a distributable event under the regulations. Of course, the plan would still have to allow for distributions that soon after termination. As to whether or not they get full vesting, that's going to speak to the partial termination rules for a plan, and will depend on the actual number of folks affected by the shutdown relative to the plan as a whole.

The plan document should determine when an employee may enroll. Or when they may change their election (0% as of 7/1, but 4% as of 7/15). A fun case is when the document alludes to administrative procedures, in which case the plan administrator can decide whether 7/15 would still be okay :) (on a non-discriminatory basis, of course!)

As an aside - how would you apply the rule in the year you turn 18? What if the hours are before your birthday, but it's the calendar year that you turn 18 in November, as opposed to February?

I'd also be on the lookout for any language that defines the NRA using years of participation, since that actually would mean the 5th anniversary of the first day of the plan year in which participation commenced. (In which case you might be looking at 1-1-20, presuming the Plan Administrator wishes to interpret the plan document in a similar manner.)

I can corroborate ESOP Guy's tale - I too had a VCP submission approved for a retroactive amendment - they never meant to include bonuses, told the employees as much, but their bundled prototype didn't have the box checked properly for PPA after always having it correct when a TPA had done their prior versions.

Isn't it enough to be the participant's primary residence, even if he doesn't own it outright?

Yeah, but if it's payroll-copmuted match, you have to do it quarterly - should be in the doc to that extent.

The trick would have been to define the vesting for year 1 as January to December just like all the future years would be. That way it's still a 12-month period.

Is it the full list of assets? Or just a note that they have the right to examine a copy of the statements issued by the regulated financial institution? (Presuming there's no audit report.)

I also think there's going to be a new code for the loan default on the 1099, that'll indicate it could be eligible for the new delayed repayment deadline.

Clearly not if that means waiting past the end of the filing deadline. And if it's a 12-31 contract year, doesn't the insurer have only 120 days to provide it? And were the commissions actually paid in 2018 rather than actually IN 2019?

I think everything was already finalized and filed with the numbers. I saw the data after the fact, when the admin in the office asked me to have our actuary peek at a potential cash balance plan on top. Those numbers WITH the CB were better (less staff cost) than hers WITHOUT it, so I figured I'd open Pandora's Box and look at her valuation report. Thanks!

A coworker has a plan where everyone's his/her own group, but still has a last day/1000 hours rule. Also there's a safe harbor 3% for everyone. There's a young HCE (owner's daughter) who made 108,000 or so in 2018. And a couple of NHCE terminees who only got the 3%. The profit sharing allocation was run such that each individual's group was allocated the exact same amount they would have gotten if the plan were written to be integrated at $80,000, with the percentages backed into by solving to get the parents to $61,000. (Maybe something like 13% of pay plus 4.3% of excess over 80k.) That, in and of itself, would be a safe harbor formula. But since it's not actually written that way in the plan document, is it enough to simply pass the coverage on the additional profit sharing? I'm concerned that because the integration level is 80,000, the young HCE got an extra "integrated piece" that would not normally have come into play had the actual TWB been used as the integration level. And so, when general testing the actual amounts, her total allocation rate (imputing disparity) ends up being just slightly higher than everyone else's, thus failing her rate group. So - does that matter? In other words, is it enough to run the plan as though it were an integrated formula and hang our hat on that? Or does the fact that the document doesn't actually say it's integrated, mean that we have to general-test it with the actual taxable wage base in those calculations? Thanks! --bri

Lou - Since he could take his IRA minimum from any of his IRAs, does it still matter if this specific IRA issues one prior to the rollover in?

Wait until the "failure to implement the deferral elections" for 9/15 issue comes into play, too! This'll be fun....

I would think she has ALL the rights. Of course, a reading of the plan document is in order.