pmacduff

I thought I would try again today to attach my *.rpt file - it looks like it worked...let me know if anyone can find out why the report is spacing after the HCEs. It never did that before!!! Thanks in advance. Patti FDPDETAILHC.rpt

I have a PEO who changed their plan to a mulitiple employer plan (2003) per all the provisions/changes in the code for such a setup. When I prepare the 5500 form for 2003, must I attach a schedule T for each employer CO signed on as a participating employer, even if they do not have anyone deferring and/or no balances in the Plan? Also - how about Employer COs who leave the leasing company during the year and may or may not have taken distribution from the Plan. Is it necessary to complete a schedule T for those that are gone? Any opinions appreciated. Also - I believe I am reading the instructions correctly, that I can list all of the employers and EIN#s on an attachment that follow any one of the exceptions in question 3 of the form (as opposed to completing a separate Sch T), however I must complete the entire Sch T for any Employer CO who does not meet any exception - agree or disagree?? Thanks in advance.

I think that the Fidelity Bond refered to as part of the IQPA is only when there are "non-qualifying" assets in the Plan. (Not to say that the plan should not have a Fidelity Bond, but the exemption from the IQPA in that question only refers to a Fidelity Bond in the context of covering those non-qualifying assets. Therefore, provided a plan has all "qualifying assets", I believe that they could still claim the wavierin 4(k)). The actual Fidelity Bond information is in Part II 4(e). Just my opinion, don't know if others will agree.

You said the "match is funded annually and the 2003 contribution has not yet been made"... If you have not made the contribution, you can net the forfeiture amount out before depositing the match $. Why do you think you have to deposit the entire amount for 2003 and then think about forfeitures? In my view, that's one of the positives of an annually funded match as opposed to per pay period deposits!

Sorry Fred - my Benefitslink is telling me I cannot upload this type of file. I'll keep trying and let you know how I make out. Thanks again. Patti

Using Relius software...cross-tested 401(k) plan with approximately 17 Doctors who are a mix of key/HCE. Some of the Doctors who are key & HCE take compensation but per the Plan Document waive ANY allocation and they do not defer. Can't I include them in my non-discrimination tests with a "0' EBAR? The Relius software is not including them. Any input is appreciated.

Fred - Yes - I looked for the "keep together" as well. It was in there at one point, but I have removed it. I guess I will have to break down & submit an incident to Relius. Thanks for your help Tom & Fred. Patti

Hi Tom - No - no "new page after" setting in the format of the group for HCE/NHCE or the "Details" section. I'm lost.........

Once again I need the expertise of the Relius/Crystal users! I have a custom Employee Status Report that sorts by HCE code, by category and then by name. I want my names to run right after one another, even on a change of one of the sort items. (This report used to work before!) Now it is sorting the employees and participants in the correct order with the HCEs first, but after the HCEs, it is resetting to start the NHCEs on the next page leaving loads of blank space. I've tried everything I can think of from suppressing blank lines to starting over and I cannot get this to work. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Oh yes - I'm still on version 7.3. (Hoping to move to 8+ when it slows down).

401(k) Plan - deferrals only. Doctor (HCE) plus 2 NHCEs. Doctor deferred $12000 and neither NHCE deferred. In Relius, when I run the ADP test for corrections and use the "statutory exclusions", Relius gives me a QNEC amount for the one NHCE who has been there awhile. If I don't use the statutory exclusions, then a QNEC is computed for both NHCEs. I know this is stating the obvious, but because over the years I have learned to be skeptical of software sometimes...is this ok? Is it acceptable for the Dr. to give just a QNEC to the one NHCE and pass the ADP tests utilizing the statutory exclusions? It makes quite a $ difference in the required QNEC amount. Thanks in advance for all replies.

Since only one plan needs to provide the top heavy minimum, I would use the corresponding compensation for that Plan. Others agree or disagree???

I think it is a good idea because we just had a client where the client files payroll taxes electronically, but had to deposit the single 401(k) withholding from the ONE distribution this year with an 8109 coupon (payroll company would not do it for obvious reasons). I know we could have filed the $ with the #945 (it was under $2500) but the client wanted to remit the $$ asap (back in June). The IRS slapped them with a fine for not filing electronically as they are required to do for payroll $ and said for them to obtain a separate Trust ID # for the 1099-R forms/945 filings for the Plan (which they have since done!!!).

I think you might be getting different answers because a safe harbor plan that exisits "SOLEY" of deferrals & the safe harbor contribution is supposed to get a free ride on top heavy. It has been said that if there are ANY allocations (such as prior forfeitures) you lose the free ride. If the plan has other allocations and if the plan uses comp while a participant & plan is top heavy then you compute the 3% safe harbor on 7/01 - 12/31 comp and the top heavy on the total annual comp, compare the 2, & the participant should receive the higher of the 2, agreed?? I believe the issue here for the original poster is that if the plan exists "SOLEY" of deferrals & safe harbor, then you get the top heavy free ride and only have to provide the 3% on comp from July - December, is that right rffahey???

I agree with Andy - but gee Andy - do you really think there are those cross tested plans out there without an up-to-date totally accurate Plan Document that might not clearly define gateway minimums??? - I know - it's probably not polite to be sarcastic around the Holidays!!!!

All will be contingent on the definition of compensation in your Plan Document but in general: A) The top heavy has to be on the full year wages. I've been told that you compute the 3% on whole year wages and 5% on participation wages and give the participant the greater of the 2 amounts - B) 5% on participation wages C) 3% on participation wages (for SHNEC) if no other ER contributions. D) I would say 5% on all wages because participant is >500 hours, but your Plan Document should define who is eligible to receive the gateway minimum. Again - the definitions in the Plan Document will rule.

I think they mean if it is under $5000, can the Plan Administrator/Trustee do the automatic cash out with the appropriate withholding, isn't that right mom? (As a 401(k) Plan might allow.) I don't know the answer, but wanted to clarify the remark.

THess - I went to Publication 15, section 11 - (see attached). I have to admit that I am VERY confused. I don't exactly know WHAT this is saying. Whatever the "Accuracy of Deposits" rule is????? I think we need help from an Accountant on interpreting this! I had another idea, though...what if you send the payments in with the #945 form prior to the $ deposit due date of January 15th? I can't imagine that the IRS will refuse a payment!!! Was that what you were striving for?? Let me know how you make out. p15.pdf

Ok for HCEs, too...check the document.

No filing for under 100 employees/(participants?) only - over 100 still needs to file I believe. Also if the plan contains certain types benefits, I think filing might still be requried regardless of participant/employee count (maybe the child care?). Can someone help me out...

Since the checks were issued/received in December and total over $2500, then they should be deposited in December. (The only time you can send $ in with the #945 filing is when the total for the year is under $2500.) All of my clients submit withholding (through their bank) throughout the year as distributions are done so I've never had anyone use the feature to file with the #945. A distribution in February is submitted in February. Then we have the client file the #945 with monthly totals filled in. We've never had a problem. Is your question because the withholding checks are payable to the Trustees and not to the bank, so the bank won't take that check to send to the IRS? Also - if you had a distribution in February where the total tax was under $2500 and that was your only distribution for that year, you can send that $ in with the #945. I just like the clients to get the $ to the IRS ASAP! [i wasn't trying to be snotty with my "clear" remark, I just thought maybe you hadn't seen the instructions. I have a lot of small clients where there may only be 1 or 2 a year also!]

Here is a copy of the #945 instructions for 2003 - hope this helps! - It seems pretty clear to me on page #2 in the second column..."depositing withheld taxes". i9452003.pdf

Sorry Mike - I don't do documents and we use the VS type - but I guess we agree - no changes to prototypes....

Sigh...Blinky - I guess you're right, maybe under ERISA it isn't discrimnatory. I just think if the DOL was auditing the plan and saw one employee who entered early and no others, they might look closer. Also - I guess I thought from the tone of the first post that this person was going to be HCE in future years and I didn't think it would look right under examination. We've had a lot of clients want to do this very thing and it was always for a new employee who was going to definately be HCE in future years. I know..that's a lot of "IFs"................I'm just not comfortable unless eligibility was changed for all but it doesn't mean it isn't "doable" .

I think it is discriminatory if the NHCE employee that is hired the next day is required to wait the initial eligibility period. I don't know about other practitioners, but I wouldn't want to see what happens when the early entry is discovered and by then the participant IS an HCE!!!! It just doesn't smell right to me....JMHO.

Archimage - I agree because then isn't it that the document is no longer considered to be "word for word"...anyone else?