Belgarath

Mine is sort of a ramble as well. I was focusing more on the theoretical possibility of an amendment being allowable for a pretty narrow set of circumstances, rather than the practical testing implications. And I agree, at best, a potential mess for dubious gain, if any. I suppose it really means that you'd blow your design-based safe harbor allocation, and have to general test the whole shebang? Agree that there's no way to cut back on the integrated formula benefit for those who satisfy those allocation requirements. I think the whole purpose of this was to give "Joe" nothing, or less than what would be given under the integrated formula. But maybe it isn't possible - too many end-of-July brush fires to ponder this at greater length. Mind you, I'd just tell 'em NO, and amend it for the following year anyway.

I don't quite get what you are saying. As per original post, "Participants employed at the end of the year have a 0 hours service requirement. Participants that are not employed at the end of the year have a 500 hours of service requirement." So suppose that, as of this moment, someone does not have 501 hours. It isn't the end of the plan year, so as of this moment they haven't accrued a right to anything. But, between now and when they terminate prior to the end of the plan year, they MIGHT reach 501 hours. So if you amend now to individual classes, these people who attain 501 hours between now and when they terminate could be given zero allocation (assuming you pass testing). I guess what I'm trying to say is that what I mentioned should negate the underlined sentence below. I don't agree that the first participant attaining 500 hours should then negate the possibility of amending to change for participants that have NOT yet earned the right for an allocation, nor will they because they terminate employment prior to end of plan year. Of course, if the IRS chooses to follow the flawed logic, I don't know how successful it would be to fight it, and it probably applies to so few people that it wouldn't be worth it... A plan that requires participants to either be employed on the last day of the year or complete at least 501 hours of service can only change the allocation method up until the date on which the first participant works his/her 501st hour for the year. At that point, changing the method would eliminate a right the participant has already earned.

So why can't the amendment specify that it applies ONLY to participants who have not worked at least 501 hours as of the amendment date, and who terminate employment prior to the last day of the plan year?

Thanks Peter. They also never filed 5500 forms at all, so those were recently submitted under DFVCP. There's an IRS VCP filing being submitted shortly, so only the PT issues left to be cleared up. So it sounds like I was understanding it correctly. I'm just always surprised if anything is easier than I expect - it makes me nervous!

So, 403(b) plan sponsor withholds deferrals way back when, and never submits them. So multiple years involved. I'm trying to determine how this works for both calculating the penalty, and submitting it/requesting a waiver. When you start with the 5330, you quickly realize that even if the 403(b) plan is subject to Title I of ERISA, it is not a "plan" subject to IRC 4975(e)(1). But it IS (in this case) subject to Title I of ERISA, and the prohibited transaction penalties. So, is it really just as simple as submitting a VFC filing (in this case, it is worth it) and calculating the interest amounts using the VFC calculator, and requesting a waiver of any PT penalties? And if so, what has your experience been about a waiver being granted? I feel like I must be missing something.

Yes, let's just say that at Fenway Park, before restrooms were upgraded somewhat, those longer lines and inebriated fans resulted in a situation where after 1 trip to the restrooms, you threw away your shoes! The good old days ain't so great as they never were...

Although I wasn't a huge fan of theirs, I always like the cover for Kansas' "Point of Know Return." The ship tipping over the edge of the world was just a great image.

25% is correct. No 5330. Earnings must be included. And IF there is any match that was missed due to the error, the additional match, plus earnings, must be contributed. Plus proper notice, etc. - see RP 2016-51, Appendix A, .05 (9).

Did they really, truly, have a Tonya Harding bat night? Somehow, I either never heard that one, or in my dotage had forgotten. I thought you had to be President to get away with any such uncivilized behavior...

Well, then at least there was SOME positive to the event!

Perhaps, with luck, this might be accomplished without a custom document? Don't know if such provisions would perhaps be allowed in a pre-approved document under an "other" election, or in an Appendix, etc...? Just a thought.

I also love stats, although the current spate of ESPN "stats" are becoming absurd. "He's the first player ever to hit triples in two consecutive road games in the 8th inning or later when his team was losing by more than three runs, while wearing white cleats and chewing bubble gum rather than tobacco..." - you get the idea. You probably already know this, but if not, look up Smead Jolley. A stat no one wants to be remembered for.

Fortunately for me, I'm not on Facebook, nor do I ever intend to be. Way too narcissistic for my taste. Nor do I Twitter, or Tweeter, or whatever. I don't even own a cellphone! I'm not quite a Luddite, but a lot of this stuff just leaves me cold.

Perhaps the plan should have some "severance from apron strings" language.

Ah, but did you get to know Ned Ryerson? And I haven't heard the word "baud" for at least 25 years!

Might be a good reason not to allow participant loans in the plan!

I remember PIX. I wasn't on that board, but our EA was. You know you are getting old when you start remembering "history."

Of course there are exceptions, but I wonder what it is about the medical professions and the greed factor. No other class of for-profit employers that I deal with so consistently leaves no stone unturned in the effort to favor themselves and shaft their employees. Is it part of the curriculum at medical school?

Separate - BUT, with the caveat that if it is a "multiple employer plan" - which I rather doubt, then you have one 415 limit.

Provisionally, yes. At this point, without any additional guidance or discussions with other folks, my personal approach would be that if the plan termination date is BEFORE the IRS officially issued letters for pre-approved plans, then I wouldn't restate. Anything on or after date letters were issued, I'd restate. When I said I'd always restate, I was thinking of "post letter" termination dates, but I didn't articulate that. I might very well be persuaded otherwise. It is just an issue that I started to consider. I'm sure lots of folks have, or soon will be, asking the same question.

Not in a million years!

Well, first things first. Is this a SEP, or a SIMPLE? SEP's can have three year eligibility, SIMPLE's only two year. Then, what eligibility requirements did you choose? If we assume either a SIMPLE, or a SEP with less than 3-year eligibility, then I'm with Bird. I interpret the "reasonably expected" language in the SIMPLE document to mean "reasonably expected" as of the rehire date.

Curious as to any opinions here. Suppose you have to terminate an ERISA 403(b) plan. As with most of them, an old document that was tossed together in 2009. 403(b) plan terminations are a bit "gray" at the best of times, but there's an additional issue now. Do you have to restate it prior to termination? Or, do you interpret things such that as long as it is restated prior to the end of the restatement window, you don't have to? While it is clearly the safe approach to restate, I'm just curious as to how folks are approaching this question. Thanks. P.S. FWIW, in the absence of additional guidance/information, I would always restate.

Can't get away with anything! Tom, I prefer my crow in a pie, with lots of gravy and a double crust. Unfortunately, it seems to be a regular part of my diet. The loss of brain cells is a geometric progression!

Ignore - I had a partial brain cramp.