Belgarath

Carol - I completely and totally agree that "shoulda woulda coulda" - but the simple fact is that many, possibly most, just didn't. So that leaves the situation(s) I mentioned, (plus probably others) so I'm wondering how folks deal with it? I firmly believe that there are tons of these plans out there, and I suspect that employers have been routinely performing such functions so that participants can get a distribution, although I have no hard evidence to back that.

Just wondering what the rest of the world encounters in "real life" on this. Plan is set up to be a non-ERISA - deferral only plan. In order to avoid ERISA status, there are operational requirements in addition to the Plan provisions. So, the Plan/Administrator, upon receipt of the DRO, refers it to the Vendor, 'cause the Plan Administrator doesn't want to kick Plan into ERISA status by making a determination if it is a valid QDRO or not. The Vendor kicks it right back, and says, "I'm not going to make this determination." A similar situation could occur with hardship withdrawals, for example. How do you folks and/or your clients typically handle this? You are between a rock and a hard place...

And if you want any support for the above other than the word of the two experts who have already responded, I have in my notes a reference (probably came originally from Sal Tripodi's ERISA Outline Book) of a case law reference to Steffens v. Commissioner, 707 F.2nd 478 (11th Cir. 1983).

Without doing any special research, I'd say just the opposite. Under 1.457-4(b), a nonelective employer contribution is deemed to be made under a valid agreement, so no deferral election should be required.

Thanks Bird - I couldn't find (when looking fairly quickly) anything on the e-file information/FAQ's, 5500 instructions, etc., that indicated it was required. It's just been done that way here since, approximately, 300,000 B.C., give or take a few years, so I thought I'd check. Certainly doesn't cause any harm...

Is it a REQUIREMENT for the filing authorization to show the EIN? We've always put it on the form routinely along with the Plan name, number, and Plan Year, but I'm not sure if it is actually a requirement. Just curious...

All kidding aside - are many young people coming into this industry these days? Back in the "old days" when I was just a pup, a lot of TPA organizations, insurance companies, etc., would take in people who knew nothing about qualified plans and train them. It seems like now, employers are less willing to train folks, and they all want someone who knows the business. Most of the TPA folks I see these days are 50+. I suppose at some point supply and demand will correct the imbalance.

I'll be eligible not too many months thereafter, but really, how far is $150 going to get me? I'd just be glad to have more hair - regardless of the color!

I'm going from memory here - the Roth deferrals are already included in Box 1, so there are no deferrals to "add back" in to Box 1 if it is just Roth. So I would expect the Box 5 amounts to be the same, in the absence of any other modifications. If you add the Roth deferrals back in, you'd be overstating Box 5. At least that's my recollection, but don't trust my memory - you'll want to look at the instructions.

Reviewing a takeover plan, and found what seems to me to be a bizarre (and inapplicable) provision. This is a PRIVATE college - non-governmental in every way. The adoption agreement defines, for faculty only, compensation as including "Employee contributions described in Code Section 414(h)(2) that are treated as Employer contributions." This wasn't a mistakenly checked "box" but was specifically drafted into the compensation definition. As I read 414(h)(2), I don't see how it can possibly be applicable in this situation. Am I missing something obvious here?

Hey Austin - don't know if this will help - I just skimmed a couple of questions, but I did note that a SCHOOL may have to pay Davis-Bacon wages in some circumstances. There is tons more information here, but I didn't take any time to look. https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/10/f18/DBA FAQs for Posting.pdf P.S. - here's one of the q & a's: Q: Are non-profit corporations subject to DBA? A: For purposes of DBA, non-profit corporations are treated the same as for-profit corporations. Therefore, when performing work on government-funded projects, the non-profit must pay its employees the DBA prevailing wages.

403(b) plan for a 501(c)(3) organization - now owners. A highly compensated employee terminates on, say, 12/31/2015. Receives a last paycheck in early January of 2016. A deferral is withheld from that final paycheck in 2016. Plan has a last-day requirement for match, so no match received on that 2016 deferral. When testing for coverage/nondiscrimination, is he counted as a HC for 2016? Or since he formally terminated employment on 12/31/2015, is he not considered HC for 2016? P.S. - don't waste any time on this, as it is purely "idle" curiosity - didn't have any effect on any testing, etc.

A plan is permitted to use partial year compensation for Gateway purposes, assuming the comp definition otherwise satisfies all requirements. 1.401(a)(4)-8(b)(1)(vi)(B)

Note, however, that such tax-free rollover treatment does not apply to any offset amount under a loan that has already been deemed to be taxed as a distribution under the Code (and reportable on Form 1099-R) either because its terms did not comply with the Code or because it remained in default past the plan’s default cure period. It may seem ridiculous of me to mention this with all the cognoscente on these boards, but since I've received questions on it already, thought I'd toss it in.

Chip - If you want a citation, see 1.401(a)(9)-5, Q&A-9.

"On the other hand, when a plan, including a pension plan, provides a benefit the availability of which is conditioned on a finding of disability made by a party other than the plan, (e.g., the Social Security Administration or the employer’s long-term disability plan), then a claim for such benefits is not treated as a disability claim for purposes of the Section 503 Regulation" My question on this is: many plans say that the determination of total and permanent disability will be made by a "licensed physician." But I'm presuming that in many cases, this physician will be chosen by the Plan Administrator. With that discretionary authority, I'm afraid that it then falls under this blasted regulation. Any thoughts on this? Sorry about the small font...

I suspect she is thinking of Appendix B, .07. But my take on all this is that yes, you are permitted under that same section .07 (3) to correct the early inclusion of otherwise ineligible employees, BUT, this doesn't override the normal timeframes for SCP. So assuming you consider your error significant, then I think you must file under VCP.

It might. Suppose the plan uses comp from date of participation - your 3% safe harbor won't satisfy top heavy if you became eligible for the SH mid-year.

"Exempt" is a word I don't like to use on this issue. If the plan meets all the requirements, it is "deemed" not to be top heavy. Probably just semantics, but even such a plan could be subject to top heavy if, for example, eligibility is different for deferrals and Safe Harbor contribution. P.S. - you may find Revenue Ruling 2004-13 helpful. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-irbs/irb04-07.pdf

Nothing. The fog burned off. Thanks.

Nice. However, I want to find out where you can get a hotel room for 3 people for $30.00, just so I can avoid that neighborhood!

Gracias. It's just always easier when there is a cite, so I was hoping there was something I had missed. But I've had my coffee now, so I can't blame anything further today on the fog...

Hey Tom - I'm not trying to accomplish this. Someone else is trying to accomplish this, and I'm saying it can't be done. I just wasn't finding a "prove it to me" citation.

Seems like a simple question/answer but I'm not finding the citation I want to back it. For purposes of this question, let's ignore proper loan limitations. So, you have a 50,000 account balance, and you take a 50,000 loan. Now you want to rollover 50,000 from your IRA to the plan to repay the loan. All money is pre-tax. Problem with this is you just got 50,000 without ever paying tax on it, nor will you, since the loan is now repaid. Must be post-Super Bowl/Monday fog, but I'm not finding the correct citation. Any bright ideas?