Belgarath

Thanks for the input. I'd tend to agree, and that would be my argument if it were questioned. But I'm not certain either - seems a little gray...

Got it. Thanks.

No one mentioned having everyone in their own group. Hence my use of the word "potential." But please tell me what I'm missing - I'm sure there is something - if no one is getting allocation of zero, why would you be using the ABT to pass coverage testing anyway? I'm missing some key point here, I'm sure. Thanks.

Isn't there a potential problem with using the ABT for COVERAGE testing, (but not a problem for nondiscrimination testing) due to the requirements of 1.410(b)-4(b), and the IRS stance that having each person in their own group (as many plans do) violates the "reasonable classification" requirement? The IRS takes the stance that this is tantamount to enumerating by name or having the same effect, and by definition it is not a reasonable classification? If your document is set up with actual groups, rather than everyone in their own group, then this shouldn't be a problem.

Curious as to what happens if you have participants who choose not to identify a gender - referring to themselves as "they" rather than he/she/whatever. We've seen a few of these in DC plans where the payouts have been lump-sum, so it hasn't mattered. These are ERISA plans. Can you just use a unisex table, etc.? What considerations are involved for the Plan Administrator to choose one table over another in such situations? I've never really thought about this issue until reading the above post. Thanks.

I can't imagine the DOL would attempt to assert penalties if the reported bond is at least sufficient to comply with the bonding requirements. But, what do I know...they work in mysterious ways, their wonders to perform...

Yes. At least IMHO. See DOL 2530.210(d).

It doesn't need to specify a specific, lower amount, (although it can) but typically it would have some language/election that allows a discretionary safe harbor contribution to one or more of the HCE's, as long as that amount is no more than what is allocated to the NHCE's. You'll have to check your document.

Yes, 100% up to 1% for HCE's only is fine as long as your document permits it.

Also, don't forget that the statutory maximum is increased to 1 million if the plan holds employer securities.

I do generally omit my "Galactic Institute Aeronautical Nuclear Titan" and "Elected Galactic Overlord" (GIANT, EGO) designations. I'm saving them for when I go into politics.

Not sure if this OP is from getting up on the wrong side of bed, or just trolling. Likely the latter. But why would you possibly care? Someone who is listing their professional credentials is, presumably, not also listing their B.A. or M.A., or whatever. Some clients, advisors, etc., etc., might not recognize what a CPC means, but they might know what an ERPA means. Etc., etc., etc. - where's the harm in listing them? If no one is interested, the eye skims over them. Have a nice day.

First things first - we have thankfully not encountered this. I suppose the IRS could be fishing - the "applicable period" for turnover CAN be longer than one year if there is a series of related events/terminations. There has been some litigation in this arena, including Matz, but I haven't followed all the back and forth for a while. I believe there have been other cases as well. I'm REALLY hoping your situation is an anomaly, and that the IRS hasn't started some @$**%$ "initiative" or test in this arena.

We do the same as CuseFan. It rarely comes up, but that is our approach.

Yes. See 1.401(k)-2(b)(4).

I agree that if your document language, somewhere, doesn't properly account for "periods of service" and the service spanning rules, that you would appear to have a problem. Is this a pre-approved document, or custom? Most of the pre-approved docs I've seen do cover this, although sometimes well hidden...

Does it? Per 1.410(a)-7(d), elapsed time vesting service is based upon whole year periods of service. If you work 1 hour in a month, you receive credit for that month. For every 12 months of credited vesting service, you get credit for 1 year of vesting. The service spanning rules apply. How is your plan situation noncompliant? Maybe I'm missing something obvious?

No, because it isn't an eligible rollover distribution. However, 10% withholding applies, but they can elect out of it if they wish.

No. See the following excerpt from Treasury Regulation 301.6058-2 (ii) Definition of filer. For purposes of this section, the term filer means the employer or employers maintaining the plan and the plan administrator within the meaning of section 414(g). (iii) Special rules relating to determining 250 returns. For purposes of applying paragraph (d)(3)(ii) of this section, the aggregation rules of section 414(b), (c), (m), and (o) will apply to a filer that is or includes an employer. Thus, for example, a filer that is a member of a controlled group of corporations within the meaning of section 414(b) must file the Form 5500 series on magnetic media if the aggregate number of returns required to be filed by all members of the controlled group of corporations is at least 250. I see Peter replied already. Good point, although I'd still incline toward the "no."

Does it say, somewhere else, how many months of vesting service are required to vest on whatever the schedule is?

BoSox (The Beantown Bombers) is much less controversial. Except perhaps to those poor, misguided Yankee fans...

One 415 limit.

Can a "regular" HRA be amended mid-year to either increase or decrease what the employer will cover? Received this question from a CPA, and while I believe it is possible (although I'd also think that if benefits are being reduced, it would only be for amounts not already incurred prior to the amendment date) I'm not sure.

Hi Bird - you certainly don't come across as an immoral jerk - you are offering an opinion on a practical approach. That said, I also would not do this - as ESOP says, the DFVCP cost is so insignificant compared to potential penalties that it doesn't seem worth the risk (however small) to me.

In my prior life, I saw a situation where an investment broker was treated as a functional fiduciary because there was an undue delay in depositing funds to participant accounts. I really don't recall the details on how long the "delay" was - amount was small, and the DOL fined the investment broker a small amount. But this was probably 25 years ago, and I expect enforcement procedures (if any) for such a situation may have changed. And I agree with Peter, or at least what I think Peter is saying - If I'm the plan fiduciary, am I acting prudently if I approve such a situation, particularly if the delay is more than a "one time" mistake? The way things are these days, it would make me nervous!