Belgarath

That's what I got out of all this as well. Thanks! I couldn't find any basis for another conclusion, but wasn't all that confident...

Ditto, and congrats!

Corp A. and Corp B are a controlled group. They have separate plans. Corp A's plan passes all coverage/nondiscrimination testing. Corp B's plan does not. Is Corp A's plan subject to disqualification, or only Corp. B's? Seems like the latter, but I'm not certain.

Since they work in the U.S., they have "U.S. source income" and therefore don't fall under the statutory exclusion for nonresident aliens with no U.S. source income. So you have to include them for coverage testing purposes, unless they fall under some other statutorily excludable category. P.S. - under "other" statutorily excludable, I'm also including someone whose U.S. source income from the employer is exempt under a tax treaty. See 1.410(b)-6(c)(2).

Agree - Revenue Procedure 2016-51, Appendix A, .05(9)(a) is very specific on the correction for the situation as you describe it, and earnings would only be due on missed matching amounts, which doesn't apply in your situation.

Governmental plans are not subject to the J&S requirements of 401(a)(11) and 417. I don't know that this changes the answer re hardship distributions, but depending upon the type of governmental plan (public safety, for example) the NRA might well have been less than age 62. However, going from memory, the anti-cutback rules of 411(d)(6) also don't apply to governmental plans. If so, then a lot would depend upon the document provisions. This could get really tricky. There are some proposed regs re NRA on governmental plans, but I frankly haven't paid much attention, as we don't do governmental plans. Maybe someone else more familiar with them can give you a better discussion of the subject, and whether any of it applies to your situation anyway. Regardless of what MUST be done, I'm with previous posters that you should ALWAYS track the amounts separately!

I can't even figure out how to set an alarm clock, much less program anything...

If you are asking about the Voluntary Fiduciary Correction program (VFC) then that's correct - no fee. If you are talking about the 5500 program (DFVCP) then yes, there's a fee. Sometimes the letters in this alphabet soup get mixed up, and I'm not entirely sure what's being discussed.

Up here in the Northeast, we're only getting about 2/3's. BUT, all the hype made me decide to look on the internet yesterday as to what happens in future eclipses, and it just so happens that April 8, 2024 will put where I live in the totality, so I don't have to move off my deck to observe if I so choose.

Thanks my2. I didn't forget it, but assumed that full correction was implicit in all of this. However, you are of course correct, and I shouldn't have assumed that everyone out there would understand this.

It sounds like you do not yet know if this is happening or has happened to any other participants? Is there any possibility that, for example, it is a simple mistake and the deferrals have been deposited to the account of another participant? Such things DO happen. You may want to consider, before calling in the DOL, simply asking your employer why your deferrals are not showing up in your account. If the answer is unsatisfactory, unclear, or standard BS stonewalling, then by all means contact the DOL. I'd just be very hesitant to contact the DOL without at least giving the company the opportunity to explain or discover a simple and honest mistake. If it WAS an honest mistake, and you sic the DOL on them, it may bode poorly for your future at the company, which may or may not be a bad thing from your viewpoint.

I'd swear I've seen, and perhaps been involved in a discussion similar to this, but darned if I can find it, so... Plan is currently a 3% nonelective "maybe" plan. So, at this point, they are NOT a safe harbor plan for 2017. Suppose many of the employees will now be entering a union. There's no problem with amending the plan to exclude union employees. What I want to conform is this: since they will, for 2017, have both union and non-union wages, then for 410(b) purposes (1.410(b)-6(d)(2)(i)) they have "dual" status - so when it comes to testing profit sharing allocations, they will be non-excluded for purposes of their non-union hours and wages, as well as top heavy. Once the plan amends into Safe Harbor status for the year, must they receive SH 3% on the non-union wages? My inclination is yes, but I'd appreciate any other opinions. Thanks. (edited to remove a section that I intended to delete, but forgot to in original post)

Thanks.

Yes, with the caveat that for these purposes, related employers that are part of the same controlled group or affiliated services group under IRC 414 are treated as a single employer.

"The litigant accepts responsibility for the document he or she submits to a court." I love your viewpoint. Sadly, it seems to me that no one is ever responsible for anything these days - the fault always lies with "someone else." I just wasn't raised that way...

Well, if you are very clear that you are drafting it for their ATTORNEY, to review, and modify as their attorney sees fit, then it seems like this should probably be ok. If you are drafting it for the parties involved without this disclaimer and instruction, seems like that does cross the line. Others might have a stricter interpretation. On a personal level, I wouldn't draft a QDRO for someone, even WITH the disclaimer. I'd tell 'em to see their attorney.

Gracias.

Thanks Kevin - I had looked at this, as well as the normal 401(b)(6)(C), and I guess the crux of my question really boils down to this: Are you allowed to use these transition dispensations when two corporations "merge" to form a completely new corporation? Logically, it should be yes, but I'm just not certain. What do you think?

Thanks MoJo. At this point, I have no direct information, and only sketchy information second-hand. Let's assume that: Neither A nor B still exist, therefore any assets they may have had were contributed to C. Let's also assume that both plans have continued to operate separately, with regard to the employees of each prior corporation prior to the merger. Was counsel involved? Perhaps, but I'm merely guessing that it may have been counsel where employee benefits plans were not addressed. These are not large, wealthy non-profit corporations, so this is the type of stuff where in my experience, counsel is rarely involved in discussion of the benefit plans.

A situation I haven't encountered before, and I'm wrestling with it. Suppose you have two non-profit corporations, A and B. A sponsors a non-ERISA 403(b) plan. B sponsors a SIMPLE-IRA. They merge, mid year, to form a new non-profit corporation C, with a new EIN, etc. Apparently A & B no longer exist, although the information I have is far from comprehensive. These are not plans that can be merged with any other plans. Can you, for the remainder of 2017, treat each set of employees as still "separate" and continue the plans as before, and hope that if ever audited, the IRS is reasonable and accepts this as a good faith compliance effort? Do you treat each plan as terminated as of the merger date, and just start fresh with a new plan - which is problematic at best, since the merger took place some time ago (date unknown - I only know that it was in 2017)? I'm reasonably certain that no plan termination notifications/resolutions/amendments were ever done prior to the merger. I don't yet know if deferrals/employer contributions to one or both plans have been made since the merger. Quite a fiasco... All thoughts appreciated!

I'm not finding anything in the cafeteria plan proposed regs that deals with this. So, let's say you have two non-profit corporations, only one of whom sponsors a cafeteria plan. The two corporations "merge" to form a new corporation, with a new employer id #. They do this mid-year. In the qualified plan world, there is certain guidance for merger and acquisition situations, but I haven't seen anything on this for cafeteria plans. Anyone have any experience with this, or know of any guidance? If not, opinions on what is normally (or should be) done? Thanks. Found some small amount of guidance which isn't really on point, but perhaps gives a tiny insight into general thinking by the IRS - seems tilted toward being reasonable - Revenue Ruling 2002-32. Since this is not on point, very old, and prior to the proposed regulations under 125, it ultimately isn't very useful, but is all I've been able to find...

Hmmm - I'm not so sure about that. 1.72(p)1, Q&A-7 refer you to the "tracing rules" in 163(h)(3)(B). As I read those rules, if you can't prove that the funds were actually used in "acquiring, constructing, or substantially improving" the qualified residence, then I don't necessarily think it qualifies. So, if you buy a house for $200,000, and take a mortgage loan from the bank for $180,000, and said loan is secured by the residence, and you additionally take a $50,000 loan from your plan, and use $20,000 for the difference, and then spend the other $30,000 on a trip to Monaco, do you think this qualifies? More to the point, do you think the IRS would agree? Just curious.

So were the allocations actually affected? What is the "fixed dollar" amount for each group, and does whatever percentage that was used produce a lower or higher result? My initial inclination is that if the results are actually different, then VCP is indicated. If not, I could perhaps be persuaded otherwise.

Yes, I think the term "design based" safe harbor is sometimes a little confusing. The uniform points plan is a "safe harbor" but it is a NON design based safe harbor. In the design based safe harbor, you don't have to test the allocations. In this uniform points non-designed based safe harbor, you do, as Mike pointed out. And I agree that while you must grant points for service or age (or both) granting points for compensation is optional.

I thought that mostly applied to 25 year old trophy wives (or husbands - let's have equality here) marrying wealthy 80+ year old spouses. Kidding aside, I like much of what I'm hearing about this docusign stuff. How expensive is it, and what kind of a learning curve (for someone who isn't all that swift on computer applications...) Thanks.