pmacduff

Thanks Fredman. I'm using all the "div" tables. I think my Crystal report may be pulling only those with balances because I had modified another old report. I may play around with it when I get some free time . I'll keep you posted. I'm running on an "old" version (9.1) but I did contact Relius support and they were very helpful. They had me do a script in SQL and I could then copy and paste the complete division listing to Excel. Relius support told me that once I upgrade/update, they think I can print one off DB viewer that will have all divisions.

couldn't get that to work. no option to print. I'll keep trying other things.

ok - I'll give that a try and let you know..... keep singin'

Ok Tom I need your assistance... I have a client that is a PEO and has 80+ divisions (employers). There is a crystal report I modified that gives me the list of divisions, however it will only list the divisions for which there are employees in the database. When I add new divisions (prior to adding any of the corresponding employees) I like to review a listing of the divisions to be sure I have them all and entered all the new ones. Can you think of a way I can get the report to print all of the divisions and not just those with associated employees or is that not an option? Thanks in advance

IMHO - since you can combine minimum required distributions and take them from one IRA (unlike qualified plans) - I would suggest the client take more out of another IRA acccount to cover the total minimum. If he has no other IRA accounts then I think he's got bigger issues with such a "nonliquid" asset ! Janet beat me to it!!!!

Very cute! Does Tom Poje have some competition ?!??!!

Kim - we had a similar case, but the attorney wanted the distribution to be made directly to him & not the participant !

I seem to remember something about the fact that safe harbor contributions had to be made no less frequently than quarterly per the Regs. This seems to be what the OP states this plan doc requires. Am I incorrect?

Then as TPA there isn't really anything that I can provide? The 401(k) plan that we TPA was new in '07 but the client has an existing DB Plan that has always needed an audit. The Accountant is requesting information from the client with regard to the SAS 112. The client is looking to me for guidance and I didn't want to tell them they need to deal directly with the CPA on this if there is a roll I should be filling for them. Thanks for the responses!

Thanks Janet, I have read through some of those articles this morning. I guess my question is...does this standard apply to the Qualified Plan 5500 audits? Reading through I got the impression that the standard applies to the Company's regular financial statements. These are statements that the Company would prepare and the Accountant would audit. In the Qualified Plan arena the Investment vendor (not the client) prepares the financial statements and the Independent auditor reviews them. Am I missing the boat on this?

No - if the plan is top heavy you still get your pass on the ADP testing but the client will have to make a top heavy contribution for those who qualify. Depending on the demographic, the $$ could add up.

I need assistance from all you CPAs out there! A client has a large plan 5500 for 2007 where the auditors are requesting information from the client with regard to SAS 112. The Accountant has mentioned that this is a new standard for the current year audits. I work with a number of Accountants and Accounting firms on the large plan audits for our clients. We have already completed many for 2007. This is the first request I have heard of referencing this standard. The entity is in the health care field and not for profit. They also have a DB Plan. Any assistance greatly appreciated!

FWIW - we just had an IRS audit on a safe harbor plan. The corrective 401(k) deferrals and match were both deposited as QNEC per the auditor. I know the auditors can have different methods but this guy has been doing audits a long time...

FWIW - I'm with Kevin...that's how we do it (in the year of distribution). That way the employee 401k contributions tie to the W-2 forms. I have had plans checked for this reconciliation numerous times upon IRS audit. Most large plan accountant auditors have agreed with me upon reading the instructions although I have had a few tell me otherwise. As Kevin notes - I do not change the Schedule H and the auditors make a note in the audit report.

Mike - the client passed 2007 ADP testing. 2008 is the issue - but if I understand what you are saying since he has to make the top heavy anyway for '08 he may as well do it as a QNEC and that way avoid or reduce refunding of '08 401(k)? Kim - this is a multiple employer plan written with prior year testing from the get-go (except for the safe harbor employers). I don't think the Sponsor wants to change that. I ususally stay on top of all of the non-safe harbor Employers about their top heavy status so that they know when the end of the year arrives they will be required to make a contribution as applicable. In this instance the Sponsor (leasing Co.) had not properly identified the owner for this particular Employer. (I review all of the Employers on an ongoing basis to be sure that all of the key employees in my records are accurate and up-to-date.) The plan has actually been audited (IRS) twice since we took over the admin and has come through with flying colors both times (WHEW!).

When I spoke with the client that was the their plan...to simply "reactivate" the participant through payroll at the contribution percentage that was in effect when the hardship was taken. This isn't a safe harbor plan. Actually there aren't even any employer contributions; the plan consists soley of 401(k) deferrals and rollover accounts. The contribution language states "Participants may commence salary deferrals on the effective date of participation and on January 1, April 1, July 1 and October 1." It then goes on to say: "Participants may modify salary deferral elections on the first day of each Plan Year quarter." I think as you all mentioned if the participant was being allowed to resume contributions at a different level then the client would want to have them wait until the next quarterly date. But if the participant resumes at the same level they can start as soon as the 6 months has passed. Practically I think immediate resumption makes sense because what if the plan had only 2 entry dates? A person taking a hardship in February, for example, would have 6 months up in August but not be able to resume contributions until January of the following year - keeping them from contributing for almost a year! thanks again for all the responses!

Hardship Application form (generated from the plan doc software) states "I will not be able to make salary deferrals for 6 months after I receive a hardship distribution." Notice of Hardship Withdrawals (also generated from doc) form states... "that your salary deferrals will be suspended for at least six (6) months after your receipt of the hardship distribution." Again, the client doesn't care either way - just wants to be consistant and follow the plan terms. This particular employee is anxious to restart deductions asap. I wanted to see what others thought about this issue if it is not clearly stated in the plan. I didn't think about the "suspended" verbage (vs. electing a "0" deferral amount). I think that gives the client enough to allow immediate resumption. Thanks

thanks WDIK, I guess that thread leaves me with the same question because MWeddell says no wait and jaemmons says participant has to wait for the next available modification date. I have checked and double checked the plan doc, trust doc and SPD. There is no reference to the dating of when a participant can resume contributions only that they must stop for 6 months. others have thoughts on this?

I seem to recall reading a thread about this quite awhile back; can't find it... Participant takes hardship distribution December 5, 2007. Plan has 6 month suspension period. Participant is eligible to resume contributions as of 06/05/08. Does participant have to wait until an a plan modification/entry date (quarterly so it would be July 1st) or can participant resume contributions as soon as 6 months expires i.e. June 6th? I have read through the plan doc info/hardship provisions, but this specfic issue is not addressed that I can find anyway! Client doesn't care either way, but wants to be consistant (even tho' they have very few hardships).

Yes - 2006 was the first plan year and we used the assumed 3% for that year. Oddly enough, it wouldn't have mattered for '06 because there were no NHCE employees until 2007. thanks for the replies...

thank you. I have an unusual situation for 2008 where the owner has to take ALL of the his 401(k) contributions back (no NCHE contributions at all, prior year testing). We are going to refund what he has contributed to-date in 2008 now and he has stopped 401k contributions. The owner thinks that because his contribution percentage is effectively going to be 0% for 2008 he shouldn't need to make the top heavy. By the time we get to 12/31/2008 and compute his annual percentage for '08 it will be less than 3% anyway, so the top heavy for his NCHE shouldn't be much at all. Thanks again.

I remember in the distant past (I think!) that if a 401(k) plan is top heavy and the 401(k) ADP fails; you still need to consider the original % that the HCE contributed in order to figure your required top heavy contribution, is this correct?

I know this may create a firestorm but for what it's worth I've seen plenty of attorney drafted plan documents that should never have been written. Apparently written with no pension related experience & definately not what the client needed or wanted (& with a high price tag). So let's agree that there can be errors by either side (attorney or TPA) as well as excellent preparation and implementation of plans by either group while following the letter of the law. I think that what roles each should play in plan design, consultation and the like should be based upon experience and background among many other things. I don't believe just because someone has a law degree that she/he can prepare a client's plan document better and more "legally" than I can as a TPA with 18 years of experience. just my 2 cents.

sorry ak2ary...reading too fast and I missed that "testing" word which of course makes all the difference. But I'm still not 100% sure I agree that it is an "abuse" issue to use the original prior year testing % if the plan is amended and remains that way permanently as far as the testing comp definition.

It didn't sound to me (from the original post) as though the Employer changed the compensation definition because of the 401(k) non discrim testing or any other testing issue, but rather as an overall permanent plan change. So... my opinion is still that the client is ok with that change and should use the original prior year testing number. I do definately agree that they shouldn't be changing the comp definition continuously but just don't think that applies in this case....but I have been wrong before !