Jump to content

Bri

Senior Contributor
  • Posts

    1,094
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    59

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Bri got a reaction from Luke Bailey in SHM in gateway   
    No, matching contributions do not count towards (or "trigger") gateway minimums.
  2. Like
    Bri got a reaction from Lou S. in SHM in gateway   
    No, matching contributions do not count towards (or "trigger") gateway minimums.
  3. Like
    Bri got a reaction from Luke Bailey in Mandatory Federal Withholding - Form W4-R   
    of course they could roll the proceeds to an IRA, avoid the 20% withholding, and then turn around and raid the IRA without mandatory withholding.
  4. Like
    Bri got a reaction from Flyboyjohn in May an employer design a plan with no payout until normal retirement age?   
    I always imagined if I had my own company I'd make the plan as legally unappealing as possible for the staff - pooled investments, no ISW or loans, QJSA requirements, no payout until 65+5....and then I'd do the triple-stack match nobody would want to sign up for 
  5. Like
    Bri got a reaction from ugueth in Mandatory Federal Withholding - Form W4-R   
    of course they could roll the proceeds to an IRA, avoid the 20% withholding, and then turn around and raid the IRA without mandatory withholding.
  6. Like
    Bri got a reaction from acm_acm in Mandatory Federal Withholding - Form W4-R   
    of course they could roll the proceeds to an IRA, avoid the 20% withholding, and then turn around and raid the IRA without mandatory withholding.
  7. Like
    Bri got a reaction from Lou S. in Mandatory Federal Withholding - Form W4-R   
    of course they could roll the proceeds to an IRA, avoid the 20% withholding, and then turn around and raid the IRA without mandatory withholding.
  8. Like
    Bri got a reaction from CuseFan in Mandatory Federal Withholding - Form W4-R   
    of course they could roll the proceeds to an IRA, avoid the 20% withholding, and then turn around and raid the IRA without mandatory withholding.
  9. Like
    Bri got a reaction from John K in Mandatory Federal Withholding - Form W4-R   
    of course they could roll the proceeds to an IRA, avoid the 20% withholding, and then turn around and raid the IRA without mandatory withholding.
  10. Like
    Bri reacted to WDIK in Mandatory Federal Withholding - Form W4-R   
    26 U.S. Code § 3405 - Special rules for pensions, annuities, and certain other deferred income
     
    (c)Eligible rollover distributions
      (1)In general
             In the case of any designated distribution which is an eligible rollover distribution—
         (A)subsections (a) and (b) shall not apply, and
         (B)the payor of such distribution shall withhold from such distribution an amount equal to 20 percent of such distribution.
      (2)Exception
      Paragraph (1)(B) shall not apply to any distribution if the distributee elects under section 401(a)(31)(A) to have such distribution paid directly to an eligible retirement plan.
      (3)Eligible rollover distribution
      For purposes of this subsection, the term “eligible rollover distribution” has the meaning given such term by section 402(f)(2)(A).
  11. Like
    Bri reacted to Paul I in 401 K medical debt proof   
    Each plan can set its own rules about what is or is not acceptable documentation for a hardship withdrawal.  I suggest that you direct your question to your plan's Plan Administrator.  The contact information for the Plan Administrator should be in your Summary Plan Description (SPD).  If you don't have or cannot easily find your SPD, you may start with asking your Human Resources or Benefits Departments.  If the plan has a web site, the contact information (and a copy of the SPD) may be readily available.
    Some plans do not require formal documentation and allow a participant to self-certify the need for a hardship.  These are relatively new rules which some companies have decided to use, but the plan documents and the SPD have not yet been updated to communicate this change.  When you reach a contact, you may want to ask if the plan now permits self-certification.  It is worth asking to save time having to jump through hoops trying to gather paperwork.
     
  12. Like
    Bri reacted to Lou S. in May an employer design a plan with no payout until normal retirement age?   
    Make sure the owners know that the no pre-65 distribution rule also applies to them as well as any "executives" then might hire.
  13. Thanks
    Bri got a reaction from Peter Gulia in May an employer design a plan with no payout until normal retirement age?   
    I always imagined if I had my own company I'd make the plan as legally unappealing as possible for the staff - pooled investments, no ISW or loans, QJSA requirements, no payout until 65+5....and then I'd do the triple-stack match nobody would want to sign up for 
  14. Like
    Bri reacted to CuseFan in Can freezing the wrong plan be corrected through ECPRS?   
    Here is a thought: I expect a 204(h) notice was never issued to the MPPP participants since the plan sponsor didn't think they were freezing that plan. An amendment to reduce future pension accruals goes into effect the latest of (1) the effective date of the amendment, (2) the date the amendment is adopted, and (3) the date that is 45 days (or 15 days for plans <100) later than the date the 204(h) notice is provided. By that scenario, it can be argued that the amendment never took effect and by administrative practice that holds true. 
    If 204(h) notices were issued then this argument has some holes in it.
    I would suggest some legal counsel input before going this route for a better comfort level.
    I assume the plan document has continued to have been updated as needed, but is not on a pre-approved platform otherwise this should have been discovered long before now.
  15. Like
    Bri reacted to Carol V. Calhoun in Non-Discrimination Testing for 403(b) Plan   
    If the plan is a church plan, no nondiscrimination requirements apply. If it is a governmental plan, the only testing is the universal availability rule, which requires that with very limited exceptions, if any employee can contribute, all must be allowed to contribute. For other plans, all of the tests applicable to a 401(a) plan, other than the ADP test, apply. 
  16. Like
    Bri got a reaction from Rayofsunshine in Excluding bonus from deferrals but not match   
    As long as
    (a) document defines the compensation that way by source, and
    (b) the compensation definition isn't discriminatory (414(s) testing)
    Then this should be fine.  Maybe a suggestion to make sure the SPD spells that out well enough so people aren't leaving match money on the table for only doing 6% of the base pay, but otherwise folks just need to think it through and maybe sign up for more than 6% so that they still clear 6% of their entire "match compensation" figure.
  17. Like
    Bri got a reaction from Luke Bailey in Automatic Enrollment question   
    just get them to re-sign-up for the $X per paycheck as you claim it's not always obvious whether they'd be above or below 3% each time.
  18. Thanks
    Bri got a reaction from Peter Gulia in Beneficiary Designation   
    I thought it was the opposite - you don't have to offer annuities but if you do then the spouse has to agree to any annuity version that's not the QJSA.  Yeah, been a while.... 
  19. Like
    Bri reacted to Peter Gulia in Beneficiary Designation   
    On September 6, 2000, the Treasury department published a final rule to amend the 1988 rule.
    Under that amendment, a plan sponsor may amend its plan to remove an optional form of benefit (including an optional annuity) if the plan provides a single-sum distribution form otherwise identical to the optional form of benefit eliminated. Such an amendment must not apply to a participant with an “annuity starting date” earlier than the 90th day after “the participant has been furnished a summary that reflects the amendment and that satisfies the requirements of 29 CFR [§] 2520.104b–3[.]” (I’ve simplified those explanations, and omitted some conditions.)
    For the details: Special Rules Regarding Optional Forms of Benefit Under Qualified Retirement Plans [final rule], 65 Federal Register 53901-53909 (Sept. 6, 2000), https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2000-09-06/pdf/00-22668.pdf.
    Also, the Treasury department published further amendments in 2004, 2005, and 2006.
    https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2004-03-24/pdf/04-6220.pdf
    https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2005-08-12/pdf/05-15960.pdf
    https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2005-09-13/pdf/05-17959.pdf
    https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2005-09-27/pdf/05-19222.pdf
    https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-08-09/pdf/E6-12885.pdf
  20. Like
    Bri reacted to truphao in Plan sequence number on rollover 401k   
    You are not starting a new Plan, you are simply restating the existing Plan to a new Document provider (E-Trade).   Please make sure you implement this properly, the penalties for messing this up are very severe.
  21. Like
    Bri got a reaction from Lou S. in Does this cross-tested plan pass??   
    I can't *imagine* your plan document requires it to be tested for nondiscrimination solely on a benefits basis. 
    Do your rate groups on an allocations basis, and all the rate groups will pass > 70%.  And then (except for the random possible exceptions which we as a pension community will remind you of in subsequent comments) you should be good.
     
  22. Like
    Bri reacted to Lou S. in The 401(a)(17) Contribution Limit and Multiple Employers   
    Under the code yes, but what does the document say about compensation?
  23. Like
    Bri got a reaction from Jakyasar in Combo plan testing - different results in for different software   
    I would think there's one value per person for 414(s) compensation as used in the testing, as it sounds that these plans are being aggregated to pass their stuff.  And as such, one value to use to determine the minimum gateway. 
    (happy to be wrong)
    Participants always enter both plans at the same time, right?  (With only the comp definition different?)
     
     
  24. Like
    Bri got a reaction from Lou S. in Combo plan testing - different results in for different software   
    I would think there's one value per person for 414(s) compensation as used in the testing, as it sounds that these plans are being aggregated to pass their stuff.  And as such, one value to use to determine the minimum gateway. 
    (happy to be wrong)
    Participants always enter both plans at the same time, right?  (With only the comp definition different?)
     
     
  25. Like
    Bri got a reaction from Lou S. in Leave of Absence & Contribution Eligibility   
    Guess it depends on what the document says...
×
×
  • Create New...