pmacduff

Whew! Thanks for the responses. I guess I was just curious because ASPA has touted this move for 3 or 4 years... It appears that most of the complaints are not things related to first year "growing pains" either. I find the comments on the hotel disheartening because one would think that with all of the hotels in Washington and the post 9/11 decreases in travel & tourism ASPA could find a grand place for the conference. I suppose that Tom P. is right, though, the main reason for most going to the conference is the content, the learning & the credits so as long as you can get your monies worth of those......right?!

The mandatory withholding rules state that any distribution under $200 does not require the 20% withholding...hope this helps. (FYI - we have an investment vendor...one of the bigger names...who insists on withholding on ALL distributions...we don't complain because they do all the 1099s and withholding submissions !

Didn't know where else to put this...everyone has been providing great info from the 2002 ASPA conference that I know is greatly appreciated...but what about the fun stuff? How was the conference in general and what about the new digs? Tom? Anybody? Please share with those of us who couldn't attend this year !

I don't have a custom report, but you could set up a census DER and export the addresses to a file that you could open in your word processor. Hope this helps. Patti

Mike - you are right...in this plan anyway...I wasn't worried about the vesting of the TH contribution because this plan vests ALL contributions 100% so the TH vesting is irrelevent. My biggest concern was the fact that I have to give the participant with >1 YOS but less than 2 YOS (the PS eligibility) a gateway contribution. According to all of the responses here, a 3% TH to her is not enough, I must provide the gateway contribution...even if my testing passes without allocating a gateway to her. AndyH - We don't list actual allocation percentages in our cross tested plans. We can then maximize the owners and determine what % is necessary to the lower group in order for the testing to pass. We can also, if necessary, lower a HCE % (i.e., HCE children who don't necessarily need to max out), so that is isn't necessary to give the lower group more than 5% to pass.

Sorry to be dense, I thought I had most of this down and then along comes a client with a 2 YOS eligibility who messed with my thinking....so...the gateway has to go to anyone who satisfies 1 YOS, age 21 regardless if the plan PS eligibility is two YOS? - Also - I only need give her 5% even though the other NHCEs are getting 6%?

Thanks for the info...actually, this particular participant has already worked over 1 year, but the PS portion has a 2 year eligibility with immediate vesting for PS. She just hadn't hit her 2 year mark yet...also - Blinky...the general discrimination testing is passing with her only receiving her top heavy & her deferrals, are you saying she is required to get a gateway contribution anyway? In this plan, the lower group had to be given 6% in order for the HC's to max, so does that mean I have to allocate 6% to her as well? Thanks again for any info.

OK - I know that this question has been asked in many ways before, but I want to be sure that I am clear...I have a top heavy 401(k) PS plan with immediate eligibility for deferrals and a 2 year wait for new comp PS. Participant is deferring but has not yet met the 2 year elig for PS, does she receive a TH minimum? I think that she does, but wanted to clarify. Is this supported anywhere? My guess is that even though we refer to it as "dual" eligibility, the employee is actually a participant immediately and the wait for a PS allocation is 2 years. Therefore, the participant is eligible for the TH even though she won't be receiving the PS allocation. Everyone agree with me? Thanks for any thoughts.

Tom - there also could be a big difference in E-bars depending on the age demographic of the Company...agreed? I have a number of small Employer plans where the owner is quite a bit older than his/her workforce, they use a cross tested plan with 401(k) feature that allows the rank & file to defer and the HCE to max without deferring so there are no testing issues.

We've had some loan discussion before because I always wanted to show my loans as 100% vested, too since you cannot usually borrow unvested $. Relius Support told me to change my loan account in the Plan Specifications to another source (ie., QNEC) and then go into a census DER and override the vesting to 100%. If I can, I use a source not currently being used in the plan. The only problem you find is that the account activity pages will show that source for the loans (ie., I just did one using a 100% vested employer source and the loans are listed on the acitivity page as Employer Discretionary source.) This is ok with this particular client, so I've done that. Hope this helps some!

Hey - thought everyone might find this interesting (from the 2001 Schedule P instructions): General Instructions Trust's Employer Identification Number Enter the trust employer identification number (EIN) assigned to the employee benefit trust or custodial account, if one has been issued to you. The trust EIN should be used for transactions conducted for the trust. If you do not have a trust EIN, enter the EIN you would use on Form 1099-R, Distributions From Pensions, Annuities, Retirement or Profit-Sharing Plans, IRAs, Insurance Contracts, etc., to report distributions from employee benefit plans and on Form 945, Annual Return of Withheld Federal Income Tax, to report withheld amounts of income tax from those payments. Note. Trustees who do not have an EIN may apply for one on Form SS-4, Application for Employer Identification Number. You must be consistent and use the same EIN for all trust reporting purposes. No where here does it say that a number is required.......................?!?!?!?

I agree. At an administration firm I used to work for; we had a client whose accountant actually convinced them to return a month's worth of deferrals that were made on behalf of a former employee from her severance pay. The former employee wanted the deferrals taken and specifically asked the employer to withhold so it was a bit of an issue to the participant to receive those deferrals back. In this day where the government supposedly wants each person to have the opportunity to save as much as possible for retirement, I would think that someone would raise and support this issue of deferrals from severance, even thought it may not be "earned" income. I don't think that revisions to most plan document/provisions would be that difficult. Just my opinion.

Found this through a search of Benefits Link & thought maybe it would help. (it's in Adobe format).

I thought if a participant ever returned for a forfeited balance, regardless of the amount, that the participant is entitled to it and that the employer is required to restore the balance. If they had told you that a distribution would have been "eaten" up by distribution fees it may have made sense, but the response you received was incomplete and at best. Residual earnings to your account belong to you. I personally would probably pursue it just for principal reasons..........by calling the DOL and explaining exactly what you've written here. The DOL may tell you it's not worth pursuing because of the amount but I think you will get a better answer than your former employer gave you!

Tom - Are you by any chance "prepping" for ASPA you sly dog?

Thanks KJohnson for that info....that brings up some questions for me...I've been in the Retirement Plan Administration field for 12 years (Pure Admin - no investments). In all of those years, filling out the Schedule P and the like for the Plans I handled, I have very rarely had clients with and/or reported a separate Trust ID #. Never any issue from the IRS. In those 12 years at my current and prior Administrative firms, I would say I have witnessed at least 25+ IRS/DOL audits of the plans I did, and this NEVER came up. I'm not trying to be naive here, I just want to know if this is something many administrators/consultants may be missing. How truly "required" is a Trust ID, what are the consequences of not having a separate number and how would the IRS discover there was not a separate number, other than an audit and perhaps reviewing their own required form filings (Schedule P of form 5500)? I know it is not that difficult, I'm just wondering how important other TPAs feel this is and how many are assuring themselves that the client's have a Trust ID....????

I am always amazed when a Company says it has no address on a former employee. Weren't they receiving a paycheck? How did they get a W-2 form at the end of the year? Even though it is difficult in some circumstances, I would start with old payroll records - you can also check the local phone listings...you'd be surprised at how many people you can find that way. Also as Brian mentioned - you can send notices through the IRS locator program - they will forward information on to the last address that they have from tax filings by the individual. They will not, however, provide you with an address so you sometimes never know if the information gets through. We have had luck with the IRS program, though. My suggestion is to try and find these people and get them paid out. Once you have exhausted all efforts, then look to the document and other methods as Brian mentioned (ie., forfeitures). As for your TPA - were you providing timely and accurate information to them for checking the testing, etc.? If everything your provide to them is clean/timely, I would suggest looking into another TPA, there are plenty of good firms out there all across the US!

As long as the 1099-R payments reconcile to the 945 form and the submissions - why would there be confusion? I'm not a payroll person but I thought that the W-2 forms were reconciled to the 941 form - all filed separately?

2much - I "only" have 12 years of experience and alpha is how I was trained - guess I'm a creature of habit, too!

We file ours alphabetically. Personally I think out of alpha order just begs for a DOL letter saying they are missing a schedule.......................

I don't think anyone can point you to a Reg because there isn't one - I think most TPAs recommend and most employers/sponsors file for a Trust ID # to keep things separate from the Corporate info. I personally favor a client/sponsor using only one ID number (the Corporation) because that way you don't end up with the plan tax withholding deposits under one number, the 1099-R forms under one number and the #945 under another number. My clients have done this and made the January deadlines and reconciliation a hassle because the government cannot reconcile. I guess it's a matter of preference, but to my knowledge, a separate tax ID for the Trust is not required. Hope this helps.

IRAs did not change - still need to take minimums, however can combine from all IRAs & take one minimum. Qualified Plan - because he is a >5% owner, he is still required to take the minimum distribution, even if he is still working. Only those 70 1/2 who are not >5% owners and still working are exempted from their minimum requireds. Hope this helps.

As Blinky pointed out, if your beginning of the 2001 year count is over 100 and Sch H was filed for 2000, Schedule H is required for this year. If your beginning of the year count for 2002 is under 100, you will be able to then file the Sch I for 2002.

FWIW - I agree with jaemmons, the QDRO stands alone and the fact that the AP is also a plan participant is meaningless here.

Thank you Franky & Appleby for setting me straight - I did look up the info and am sorry to have spoken up incorrectly out of turn - I'm a QPA & QKA and should know better and usually like to think I keep up on everything! I follow everything now!