Bri

I suppose you could follow the standard missed-allocation rules that would apply if ANY eligible employee were skipped over for an amount due, no? (In which case I agree with the earnings-after-day-90 thought you had there.)

The plan sponsor is basically tasked with rewarding its employees with the extra amounts per the Davis-Bacon rules. Sometimes that means additional wages, sometimes it means additional benefits like health or retirement. When the D-B obligation is met via additional wages, then sure, they're on the W-2. If they're used to provide plan benefits instead, then they'd not be wages. So in your case, it sounds as though their regular wages and total D-B obligations come to $2,000 for the week. In that case, if $200 is going to be used for a plan contribution, and notwithstanding the use of the D-B for any additional welfare benefits or what-have-you, then $1,800 would be the wages component that'll eventually reflect on their W-2 at year end. And if your deferral definition of compensation includes full wages, then you'd want to apply the employee's election on the $1,800.

I only meant to combine the two parts of the argument, first that the loan requires 5 years, and second where it defines a grace period. "For purposes of section 72, a deemed distribution occurs at the first time that the requirements of Q&A-3 of this section are not satisfied, in form or in operation. " The loan didn't fail 72p because the loan had an actual term longer than a 5-year term, so I'd argue that it failed 72p only then when the level amortization (of 72p2C) went out the window, but that only occurs as of the end of that cure period.

I'd think you can combine them on part 1, no? The final loan payment was due within 5 years, and each payment (including the final one) has its own grace period for timeliness. I think A-10 in the 1.72(p) regs is good enough for that.

I gotta agree. Clients don't typically self-report a single number for the asset value, but will give us asset statements for 12/31. My one plan with gold kugerands gives me a unit value as well as the total value.

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?