pmacduff

Why would you "terminate" them? Can't you just make them "inactive" in your system until they return? Just a thought..........

I don't know a thing about severence pay, (I'm a pension geek by trade), but my thought would be to make sure I didn't start until after April 16th especially if it is a standard policy to require repayment of unused severence (which everyone seems to agree it is). If the Company wants you back that much, I would think they would be receptive to you starting April 16th instead of April 1st. Just my unsupported 2 cents.......

Thanks Tom! I was pretty sure but as we all know it's nice to know someone agrees! This example threw me because she wasn't "benefitting" as you say under the non-elective piece, but was benefitting under 401(k) and the plan wasn't top heavy. I deal with so many smaller employers it is rare to find a plan that isn't top heavy at my firm!

Just when I think I have it down... I looked for past threads but cannot find this exact example: Straight PS Plan - 2002 is first plan we are using cross-testing to increase the HCs. Plan is not top heavy. Forfeitures are being allocated to those over 1000 hours (no last day rule). Participant is deferring and has 849 hours. She is not receiving a forfeiture allocation. She did not terminate. Prior few years she has not received PS or forfeitures because < 1000 hrs. but has continued to defer. Do I have to give her the 5% that the rest of the lower group is getting? The plan passes everything without her. Any help is appreciated! Patti

I guess because the majority of my clients have 1099-R forms issued from the Investment firms, I am always completing the Schedule R to report the MFS, Nationwide, etc. EIN number. I agree with you, Theresa that under the circumstances you describe, & according to the instructions, you should not have to file a Schedule R, even if there were distributions. I use the Relius Government forms software (formerly Hyperprep) and you always got an error message if you didn't include the Schedule R. Also - I would always figure to include it is "better safe than sorry"...it is, after all, only 1 page ! Patti

Line #3 per the instructions is the only line that PSPs & Stock Bonus Plans are exempt from completing. The form still needs to be done if there were any distributions, even in a PSP. The Schedule, I believe, is supposed to be used by the government to cross reference with the 1099-R / 1096 forms, etc. So if any distributions were done, Sch. R should be completed. P.S. I just double-checked the 5500 instructions; Schedule R, and I think you might have taken part of the section (2) out of context on "Who must file"... If you reread the entire section, it says that ALL must apply, (including that it be a PSP or Stock bonus plan.) The three bullets items above that must also be applicable.

We are on stand alone workstations, but used to get that message all the time on clients that had a lot of transactions. It was almost as if we were trying to hurry the system too much. Also - when we got that message, it seemed to take even longer for all the transactions to process. Usually if I waited a bit before trying to exit transactions, I was able to get out ok. Can you not exit transactions at all or does it allow you to exit if you wait? Our computers were upgraded and I never get that message anymore...

Many thanks Tom! Are you sure that Corbel isn't in need of a contractor to design reports for them?....you are all down there in Florida together...

Hi Tom! It's actually an "Account Activity Report" (detailed) that is similar to the ones I used in FDP. It has the detail alpha by participant by source and fund. I want it to sort by division as well. There is also an "Account Activity" Totals report (also old FDP format) that I got to sort by division and print division names, but each division had the same overall plan totals :confused: I've attached the modified report that I used for my non-division clients...this is the report I want to sort by division with division names at the top of each group. As always, Tom, I appreciate your assistance and input! Patti

I'm doing another one of my stress-inducing modifications to a report...I'm trying to get an existing report to sort by division and then to print the division name at the top of each group. I tried copying a Relius report sorted by division in how it was sorted and defined for divisions, but mine keeps bombing out. Can anyone tell me what tables I need and what variable I should be using to print the entire division name at the top of each page? I didn't think this would be that hard...any help is greatly appreciated........Patti

My guess is that the bank won't take the check because of the way it was made payable... If you have a separate Trust ID # and corresponding 8109 coupons, you definately don't want to deposit under the Corporate ID#. As Robin mentioned, that's an accident waiting to happen when the government goes to reconcile. I have a client that is still trying to straighten out a pension withholding deposit issue (where #'s were different) that occurred back in 2000...and the kicker is that the withholding amount was approximately $420! Wasting a lot of everyone's time. My two cents says that you should try and have the investment firm recut the check...possibly payable to "The Trustees" of the plan andyour Corporate bank? Or ask the bank how they want the check payable? Best of luck...maybe you can tell us how you end up....

The original thread referred to an "internal" auditor, not necessarily an "IRS" auditor. I have had many 5 year loans in my 13 year tenure as an administrator, and many of those plans and loans were IRS audited (one plan had 68 loans). In no instance did the IRS auditor make mention of the fact that a loan could possibly be as much as 30 days over the 5 year mark depending on when you measured. I would think the main concern of an audit would be to make sure the the loan follows the plan provisions, is being repaid according to the amortization schedule/loan paperwork and falls within the qualified plan loan guidelines in the regs. I think someone here is getting alittle paranoid....

I have a 401(k) safe harbor plan where the Employer chose the 3% to all eligibles. I have a participant who terminated in February with 280 hours. Do I have to give him the safe harbor $? Can you restrict the 3% to those over 500 hours who terminate? I know this should be fairly simple, but I haven't been able to find anything... Everything I find says you cannot have a 1000 hour or last day rule for safe harbor, but does not specifically say if I can exclude terminees with <500 hours. Any input is appreciated.

Good points, too Bill - I forgot that I actually use the "Status Date" for term date in my reports, not the formal term date (which doesn't update until the plan year end). Again - I modified the report to only show the "Status Date" (ie., term date) when the status code is "Terminated" by using a formula in the field. That way, when you have a status date for rehires or newly eligibles, etc., it doesn't print out the status date, only for my terms and term ineligibles.

What does the Plan Document say? My thought is that it would usually be the 2001 comp because in theory you are valuing the plan on 01/01/02 and would not yet have any 2002 compensation figures, right?

Bill - I actually changed the Employee Status report format so that the status for those who terminate before entering the plan show a status of "Terminated Ineligible". Like Tom says, I let the system work as normal on all the data fields, and I have just manipulated my reports to show the status I wanted. I did something in Crystal like - "If category = "Ineligible" (or "8") & Status = "Terminated" (or "T") & Status Date >0, then category = "Terminated Ineligible". This way Relius is doing the calculation, I am just using my own terminology for the reports. Would this work for what you need? Hoped it might help...Patti

So Andy - you are saying it's ok for me to give 5% from date of participation (July 1 - Dec 31) as long as my tests pass?

I have a cross tested plan that is NOT top heavy. A participant comes in as of July 1, 2002. Comp is defined in document from date of participation. Can I give this participant 5% of salary from 07/01/02 - 12/31/02? Someone mentioned to me that even in a non-top heavy plan, the old cross tested rules required that you give 3% to everyone. If I used 3% of this participant's total annual comp...it is a larger $ than 5% of comp from July - Dec. I want to do this correctly........any advice/cites would be greatly appreciated!

Just to put in my 2 cents, I've been doing pension administration since 1990 and I was taught to include the receivable contribution as it is allocated on the last day of the plan year and is reflected in the participant's 12/31 balance. I was alittle concerned after all these years to see that from what Tom says, the "majority" of administrators have not included receivables. What a relief to see, (albiet verbally), that Mr. Leslie reiterated what I had been taught.................... I will continue to include receivables as I have done going on 13 years.................!

Money Purchase, right Happy?!

I want to make sure I follow this...the self-employed person must make their election to defer by December 31st...but the actual deposit of $ can be made up until April 15th plus extensions? Are there any cites about this? I have found many references to the election being made by 12/31, but no references to the actual deposit of deferral $. Any info is appreciated...

I didn't mean for her to defer $11,000 - why doesn't she just defer $1000 more as regular deferrals, it will accomplish the same thing?!?!?!? P.S. If you seach "catch up contributions" on these boards, you will see a lot of different articles and threads (I do it from the main page of Benefits Link). One of these might give you something you can use to help her understand that you have to hit the plan or statutory limits 1st...

If the test is passing and she hasn't deferred $11,000, why doesn't she just defer more???

I looked at the PBGC premium form filings and under "Who must file" it says..."The plan administrator of each single employer plan and multiemployer plan covered under section 4021 of ERISA. I began reading through that section, but it's pretty long, I figure it should answer your question................

The mandatory 20% withholding rules only apply to "eligible rollover" distributions of which 70 1/2 minimums are not. No required withhlolding....