Belgarath

It isn't nice to make fun of the handicapped! Typing with all these extra thumbs is difficult. But of course you are correct, I did mean 2016-51.

Impossible to comprehend. Unbelievable. I think it fits just fine.

What FIS document is this? We use the PPA VS in AA format, and it reads very differently, (and IMHO is much clearer). Ours doesn't have quite the same option as yours, and the closest choice is this - underlining is my emphasis: _____(not to exceed 12) consecutive month period from the Eligible Employee's employment commencement date and during which at least ______(not to exceed 1,000) Hours of Service are completed. If an Employee does not complete the stated hours of Service during the specified time period, the Employee is subject to the 1 year of service requirement in i above. I'm honestly not sure how I'd interpret yours, and I would probably ask FIS to clarify. Our document (and I had this confirmed by FIS) would be that if you don't work the requisite number of hours in the initial 3 month period ONLY, then you revert to the "Year of Service" standard, and there are no subsequent 3 month measurement periods - even in the first year.

But WAAAAAAYYYYYY more interesting.

Lasagna al Poje. Sounds good! Pretty similar to what I use, but I always use onion, oil, more garlic, all ricotta, and FRESH chopped parsley - really brightens up the flavor. Also prefer the regular noodles - purist (or maybe snob) that I am. I love the hot Italian sausage (although I usually have to use sweet, or just hamburger, because most of my family doesn't like spicy stuff - strange people). The thing is, it is pretty hard to go wrong - I've rarely had bad lasagna. I assume you make it with love... Maybe you can e-mail me a tray of it. Virtual meals are probably better for me anyway.

See Revenue Procedure 2006-51, Appendix B, .07(3).

I'm not sure - it looks like the formatting is off under the adoption agreement section you pasted in, and I'm finding it confusing. Can you take a look at it and see if it is correct as shown?

Yes, but two bottles are required - one for the sauce, and one for the cook. And stop it - thoughts of lasagna are interfering with my concentration!

Hmmm - how flattering to be called a youngster. However, the truth is that being an "oldster" my brains have turned to mush, and I just didn't pick up on the reference. Now all this talk of pasta sauce has made me hungry (for homemade sauce, not the stuff out of a jar...)

Thanks Tom.

Ragu?

Interesting situation - self employed individual makes deferrals based on a "draw" during the year, then discovers after end of year that earned income is zero. So deferrals have to be refunded as an excess. Now, in a more "normal" situation, where there is, say, an ADP failure, I know the IRS position is that those deferrals count toward determining allocation rate to the Key, even though they are subsequently refunded. However, it seems a stretch to apply this to someone who is ultimately determined to have zero compensation, so I'd argue that no top heavy minimum would be due for the NHC's. Any other thoughts/opinions?

Thanks.

Thanks for the response. Yes - but the IRS language in the "fix-it" guide was causing me some concern: "Corrective action: If you maintain other retirement plans, cease making new contributions to the SIMPLE IRA plan. You may be able to file a VCP submission requesting that contributions made for previous years in which you maintained more than one plan remain in the employees’ IRAs." So I was trying to determine if the funds could be left in the SIMPLE, and paying the extra 10%, but the Rev. Proc. language appears to say that this would result in no deduction for the SIMPLE contribution. If so, then it seems better to distribute as an excess - taxable in 2017, so big deal, then make up that "lost" deduction during 2017 in the 401(k) deferral. I don't think it is crystal clear, which is why I'm seeking other opinions! FWIW, my preferred option is just to leave it there, stop all further contributions, and contribute remaining of 415 max to the 401(k) plan - deducting all of it as normal. I'm just not certain the IRS will approve that, although there's no logical reason they shouldn't...

Wording has changed a little bit in the Revenue Procedure 2016-51 from prior Rev. Proc. - it is a bit less explicit regarding the following. So, let's say you have a SIMPLE-IRA to which you have contributed during 2017, then you established a 401(k) and contributed to that as well. Whoops. So, when it comes to correcting, can you file VCP and count the SIMPLE as an "Excess Contribution" and refund it? Can you still have the option under the VCP to retain it in the SIMPLE, but pay the 10% excise tax on the retained amounts (but apparently get no deduction for it, so probably not a savory option anyway?) Other wonderful options? I tend to favor refunding, particularly when fairly early in the year where participant can have time to make it up anyway under the 401(k). Appreciate any opinions/thoughts. P.S. - anyone recently submitted one one way or the other, and if so, with what results?

I didn't know it either!

Austin - in case it wasn't clear, this portion of my last post was regarding the participant's representations only - not whether the withdrawal is otherwise available or not. "Austin - while I normally agree, I'd be a little more conservative on this one, only because it is pushing the edge of the envelope already."

That's one of the arguments for the "other side" that I considered. But it seems pretty clear that if fiancée gets evicted, she will too - hence my comment about being similar to renting. Austin - while I normally agree, I'd be a little more conservative on this one, only because it is pushing the edge of the envelope already.

See Revenue Procedure 2016-51, Section 6.07(3).

I keep waffling on this. I can see arguments for both sides. Of course she'd have to show that the "need" can't reasonably be relieved otherwise, but assuming she can, I don't really see that it is much different than if she were renting and was about to be evicted. Maybe I'm just getting soft in my old age.

By "they" I was referring to the document provider/TPA. So I reiterate my question - have you asked the document provider/TPA WHY they did this?

Haven't seen this. But many documents/checklists provide for either ERISA or non-ERISA - maybe they just checked the wrong box? Hard to even guess without very specific information on any individual plan in question. Have you checked with any of the prior document providers/TPA's to ask them this question?

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you are saying, but you can't use the "maybe" notice for a safe harbor matching provision - only for a nonelective. Looks like ETA and I were responding at the same time, but I type more slowly...

I think you'll find that most Administrators will require an eviction notice from the BANK. I don't believe you'll find a bank willing to produce a false eviction notice. While I truly sympathize with your situation, I'm dubious that it will work.

FWIW... Excluding 3rd shift employees shouldn't be, IMHO, a problem. They could be employed the entire year, and the exclusion isn't based on hours, either directly or indirectly, but on a bona fide employment classification For the "4 month" employees, I think that's a classification based indirectly on service, and you'd need the "fail safe" language.