pmacduff

I'm with Jenny, I have no problems with Relius and eligibility as long as the specs are coded in correctly...large or small plans. Rehires can always be an issue regardless of plan size, seems like I am always rechecking those!! You are right though, Jim, sometimes when you are relying on the client to provide the information there can be some errors in that data which in turn cause problems. On my large plans in particular, whatever the data gathering during the year (weekly, monthly, quarterly, etc.), I still request the final W-2 or gross wages at year end (as applicable) so that I can verify the data I received throughout the year against the totals at the end. Sounds like a lot of work, but it works well for me and I can catch any discrepancies. Good luck!

ok - I wanted to be sure that if the Employer allowed the loan repays to continue to the 401(k) that they wouldn't be considered to be "maintaining" the 401(k) in the same year as the SIMPLE. I did know that the contributions had to stop, but did not know that the plan could be frozen and thereby allow the loan repays. Thanks much for the input!

Employer wants to term 401(k) by 12/31/2008 and have a SIMPLE 401(k) for 2009. Existing 401(k) plan has participant loans. Can the Employer continue to allow any loan repays to the 401(k) through the time that the actual distributions are completed or does that consitute "maintaining" within the same year?

Hi Brenda, We treat those loans as offset as well and have also had takeover plans where the Sch H reflects defaulted loans under the deemed section. I have had many accountants preparing the audit report who want the loans moved under the "deemed" section. I go through the explaination as to why it is an offset (distribution) and not deemed. Sometimes it takes a few times for me to get through ; but ultimately they have agreed with me!!

Hey Tom - yes they do show on the excludable report if I run a 3rd report using the "default" division. I was trying to cut down on that so I thought why not put them in one of the 2 "divisions" I have in the census data for the eligibles, then they show up on that report and I only have 2 sets of reports instead of 3. not a big deal but might save some trees!!! I have to say that I'm more comfortable with using the component plan testing after going through that audit!!! I think the auditor and I were learning many different nuances together! He's a very knowledgable auditor that we have worked with in the past. He mentioned that they like having a TPA involved in the audit when it's a crosstested plan because he doesn't process plans on a regular basis and the clients are usually lost when it comes to the cross testing tons of fun!!!

ok- plain vanilla crosstested integrated profit sharing plan (no 401k, SH, etc.) Split into 2 component plans to pass nondiscrimination testing. Plan passes coverage as a whole and both component plans pass no problem. Both pass 401a4 as well. My question is...when I put my employees into the 2 "divisions" does it really matter where I put the employees who have not yet met the eligibility requirements of 1 YOS age 21 since they don't impact the testing? I left them in the Relius "default" division, but seems to me I might want to put them one of the groups so that all employees are reflected in the 2 groups non discrim reports. Am I overanalyzing? We had a client's crosstested plan go through an IRS audit, and after having spent so much time with the auditor on all the reports and details, I'm thinking it might be best if those noneligble excludables show up somewhere on the nondiscrim reports.

once again I believe this has been covered on these boards, but I can't find the thread... If plan has no distributions during the plan year and is a crosstested plan with a profit share allocation for the plan year, should a Schedule R still be filed to report the coverage information?

Thank you Tom - that did the trick (no pun intended, this being October & all !)

ok my "Crystal" friends... We put our valuation reports together in a custom format. SO....my dilemma is that I don't want the page numbers on the ADP/ACP reports that print directly from Relius. (I don't want to have to save the tests into Crystal where I know I can edit them there.) Is there a way to remove the page numbering in the "master" Crystal file for ADP/ACP and thereby print right from Relius without page numbers? I thought I had done it by editing the master file, but then when I printed the employee listing (which is multiple pages) the page numbers are still printing. I was able to remove page numbers from the analysis and results pages but I think it is because they are only one page. Thanks in advance!!!

too much mercury Blinky?

Dave - if it will help you... I'm in IE like WDIK, also showing last log in on Sept 11th and am usually in at least once a day....

..our administrator (patient?!?!?) turns her lonely eyes to you.. Thanks Tom - I'll check those things out and keep posted. I have a similiar report that if worse comes to worse I can modify and end up with the report I want.

Can I "re-up" this? Where is Mr. Poje?

For all the Relius - Crystal reports experts out there (!) ... I recently upgraded; on Crystal 10 I find that an old status report I have (that sorts HC employees first) is not working properly. The report data is correct, however it now lists each participant multiple times. As an example, the first HC employee is listed on the first 40 pages! I'm sure it must be something simple to change in the CR template; I'd like to narrow down where to look...any ideas? thanks in advance!!!

This beneficiary has waived withholding. I was more interested to learn if the distribution was now considered to be an "eligible rollover" distribution (and therefore subject to mandatory withholding) because the non-spouse bene has the option to roll to a non-spouse beneficiary IRA. Clearly it is not (see masteff's cites). Thanks for all the responses and input!

ok - I'm sure this can be found relatively easily, but I am lazy this morning and looking for a quick answer... I have a plan beneficiary (son) who took distribution of a portion of his mother's account when she first passed away a while ago (balance forward PS is part of the plan, so plan needed to wait until following plan year end to pay out remainder of account). In any event now he is going to take the balance. With the initiation of the non-spousal beneficiary rollovers, does this mean that non-spousal beneficiaries who elect direct payment will now be subject to mandatory Federal withholding of any sort? Thanks in advance!!

Tom - now rereading the '07 instructions for Schedule SSA, I agree with you on the wording (as I mentioned, we do that anyway, but it's nice to have support !) I think I was remembering WAAAYYY back when I was first trained...a time when the most important thing was to get those due a benefit reported; less emphasis on reporting those who had been paid out their benefit. I seem to recall that back then the instructions did appear more optional for the other types being reported; but alas...I could be mistaken!

Ahhh semantics...gotta love it! ..."required" to be reported...I see the argument that "D"s are not required to be reported, but FWIW we count them all as Tom's office does and have had no problems. We like our Relius smiley face to come up as well.....

Thanks Lori, that's most helpful! Again we're a small operation but want to get a jump on this before it is mandatory.

I posted this back in November of 2007 and received no responses...Lori???? "I have a small client who always waits until the last minute to get us the information to complete the 5500 form for his Profit Sharing Plan. (yeah I know, one of MANY small clients, actually). In any event, this particular client wants me to set him up with EFAST filing so that we don't have the worry about getting him the form timely to physically sign and file by midnight on October 15th. I know that the EFAST-1 form needs to be filed, I assume by the client? Would I then be able to file his return from my office if he provided me with the password data he receives? Is there a way for us as a TPA to obtain authorization as TPA? We obviously don't sign any of the 5500 forms which leads me to believe that for now anyway, each client that wants to do this must be set up individually, is that correct? I figured with everything going the e-filing way in the future, it is time to start this with some of our smaller clients so that we can get the feel of how this works before it is required. Any thoughts appreciated. "

"what does the plan document say..." with regard to compensation for nonelective allocations or QNEC allocations?

assuming same sponsor, different plans?? IMHO I think the "most correct" way would be to report on the "old" plan as "D" and the new plan as "A" as you suggest. My logic is that even if the Sponsor remains the same, the Social Security Administration is going to tell the participant (when they apply for benefits) that they MAY have a benefit in "such & such" a Plan.

Thanks everyone...as I mentioned, the participants are already located and ready and able to be paid out. I think both rolled the original $$ and are not yet old enough to retire so each wants to roll this "residual payout" into their IRA account. The concerns expressed to me were whether or not these would be considered valid rollovers (I maintain yes, they are!) and whether or not there was going to be any responsibility on the part of the Trustee to file an amended 5500 return and 1096/1099-R forms. The Accountant is trying to handle this for his former client who is (was?) the Trustee of the Plan. The trust did have its own tax ID #, so it is possible for the Accountant to prepare and have the Trustee file the 1099-R forms. I think he was hoping that an amended 5500 was not necessary. There is no tax withholding on the rollovers, so there won't be any tax deposit issues. I don't believe it should be necessary to file an amended final return that is over 7 years ago for this amount, but also know that the "right" way might be to do just that. Thanks again

FWIW - I think that the "otherwise excludable" in this instance is the age 21, not the year of service. (Your plan eligibility is age 18, right?) I agree with those who say this is a more aggressive approach, but not necessarily incorrect or not allowed. my 2 cents

I don't know why I have such an issue finding old threads...so...my apologies for resurrecting a topic that I'm pretty sure has been covered before. I just can't find it... Plan terminated 7-10 years ago & filed a final return. (There were only 2 participants.) Now - there are some residual assets (less than $500) that have been "found". Distributions can and will be made to the 2 participants. Does this mean the final return must be amended and refiled after this amount of time? If not, does the Trustee still file a 1096 & 1099-R forms? What does he use for the EIN/name information (plan or plan sponsor)? Plan Sponsor is also no longer in existance but participants have been located. Thanks in advance.