CTipper

What e-authorization? Been told there isn't anything necessary. Are you thinking of the 5330 rules?

Are you still looking for an answer to this question? Did you find an answer elsewhere?

Let's hope our software vendors can come up with a batch work around for us.

Based on our interpretation of the 2016 Form 5500 instructions, Safe Harbor Match is not a QMAC

Sorry it took so long to get back to you. I can't find anything that calls for an aggregated SAR. You would need to do 10 of them. We're going to have to be doing the same with a few clean up take overs as well.

Does the letter have a number on it "CP220"? If so, it's probably from the collections branch. They're possible catching up on old fines.

The last thing I could find on this was that they pick up contributions were subject to FICA Is that still true? Christopher

Tried to find this. Actually went to the 2009 instructions before I got on here. I'm also not sure if this should be a 5500 or DB question. At any rate, for 2009 do one man DB plans file a 5500 or an EZ with their Schedule B? Yes, I know it's supposed to be called something else. thanks Christopher

Yup. You're right. I was only looking at Excess Contributions. Thanks Christopher

This has helped tremendously. But, one more question. This only has to do with when the participant is taxed. Right? It has nothing to do with the 10% excise tax. (And if this was already answered in this post, forgive me) If the money comes out today it's taxed in 2010 instead of 2009 and there's no 10% If the money comes out March 16th it's taxed in 2010 like before and there's the 10% like before Is that right? thanks Christopher

Anybody know when the SPDs need to be changed to reflect this? Christopher

When I first saw this language I thought we were going to have to amend the Plan documents to reflect this change. Now that I've reread it many times, I've changed my mind. I'm wondering if my take on this is the same as everybody else's? 1. This is not optional. The Plan Sponsors must operate and administer their Plans according to this rule effective April 1, 2009. 2. The length of time the Participant has to inform the Plan Sponsor of the change is not a variable. In other words the Plan Sponsor can't pick 40 days or 70 days. The rule states 60 days. Correct? Thanks in advance Christopher

I have been asked if an employer may withdraw from an existing deferred compensation plan and start their own. They are currently in a plan sponsored by an association they belong to. They want to start their own deferred compensation plan. (okay, this part I know they can do) Instead of continuing with 2 plans -- 1 with the association and 1 on their own -- they would like to transfer the account balances from the association plan to their own plan. The Joinder Agreement specifically states this is allowed under the terms of the plan. I'm trying to see if there are any negative tax implications from this. The Joinder Agreement describes one of the investment options as having stocks in it. I have no idea how they would do the accounting on this part, but the the only thing I can think of is that the employer would have any realized gain from the sale of the assets to fund the liquidation count as income for the year the funds are transferred. Or, am I making this too complicated? thanks Christopher

QDROphile -- Huh? What are you talking about? What does registering the plan have to do with a securities lawyer? Isn't the whole point of a multiple employer (or do I mean multi?) to be able to have companies that aren't in a controlled group be in the same plan? And, if they're not a controlled group you test them separately, and if they're in a controlled group you test them together? Christopher

That part's easy. Yes. You're over some sort of limit -- either the base 402(g) limit or some limit imposed by a test. In this case it's your failing 401(k) test. My question is -- do you get to use the $692 from 2006 as part of that year's catch up? Was the employee 50 in 2006? Did they use any catch up for the 11/30/2006 plan year end? Christopher

Unless of course the plan document was set up as a multiple employer plan. Alex, was it?

I have a potential prospect (yes, potential prospect, not potential client) that I've just been made aware of through a referral source. The potential prospect is referring to a good portion of his staff as temporary leased employees. Anybody have a good place to look at that clearly helps them understand the difference between the two? I guess a question I could ask is -- "Do new employees go to the Agency first or to them first and then sent to the Agency?" Thanks. I know I should know the answer. Christopher

Have a client with an existing grandfathered 401(k) plan They want to have 2 different levels of eligibility for different employee classes One class of employee would come in right away The second class of employee would continue to wait 2 questions: 1. Can we have a municipal 401(k) plan with 2 different eligibility definitions? 2. I'm thinking that as we're only going to be considering employees who have zero compensation in the prior plan year, that all these employees would be NHCEs. Is that right? Or am I thinking to much like a for profit 401(k) plan? Thanks

I know I've come late to this party, but since when are 415 limits for 2 separate employers aggregated? I'm not talking about the 402(g) limit. That's clear. She's at the maximum. But since when do one employer's employer contribution to a 403(b) plan have a limit on a separate employer's profit sharing plan? Christopher

I'm hoping someone out there has had this happen to them or knows where to look for a specific answer. I have a December year end plan with a plan provision that requires 1,000 hours to accrue a year for benefit accrual purposes. The participant in question reached normal retirement age and worked past their normal retirement date in 2001. Prior to retiring in 2001 she worked more than 1,000 hours in 2001. She retired, requested and received a lump sum distribution of her entire benefit. The second week of December she returns to work on a part time basis. She has not worked more than 1,000 hours in a plan year since before she retired in 2001. But, she returned to work in the same plan year that retired in. The plan has a clause about not duplicating the benefit. It's easy to see that we don't use the compensation earned prior to returning to work. Her years of service for benefit accrual purposes aren't used, etc. However, as she was employed on 12/31/2001 and she did earn over 1,000 hours of service during the entire calendar year, I'm having a hard time finding out whether or not she should get a year for 2001. Anybody got any help on this? Thanks Christopher

Except that within a DB plan they all have to be Whole Life. Okay, someone forwarded it to me outside of this Forum. It is a Prohibited Transaction. But, there's an exemption to it. These are handled in DOL PTEs 92-5 and 77-7 Bottom line -- yes, you can. The plan can buy the policy from an individual. I can't find PDFs of these to do as attachments. Maybe someone else has them. Christopher

The size of the policy would be within the allowed limits. Everyone else would have a face value that was also appropriate, per the plan document. So, if the face amount is within limits and everybody in the Plan has the proscribed face amount, we shouldn't have an issue with face amount or discrimination, right? Christopher

Greetings Is there a legal mechanism to move an existing Whole Life policy from individual ownership into a new Defined Benefit plan? It's more of an insurability issue than trying to do something fancy. I would presume that the Plan buys the Policy from the Employee and that there are tax consequences of some sort for the selling Employee. Any body know the answer off the top of my head or know where to send me for guidance? Thanks Christopher

okay I guess I was always presuming all this stuff would be part of it. I never thought you could have a valid automatic enrollment without this stuff. I guess that was your point. Sorry I got lost in the alphabet soup. But, I guess the point is we have not yet definitely been told whent automatic enrollment is no longer automatic enrollment Christopher

um, what's an EACA? are you trying to link the automatic increases, etc., to the ability to withdraw the money within 90 days? where does it say that? Christopher