Jump to content

Belgarath

Senior Contributor
  • Posts

    6,439
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    156

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Belgarath got a reaction from acm_acm in Exclude HCE from 3% safe harbor nonelective   
    At least some pre-approved documents provide for an "other" election for excluding participants from the Safe Harbor contribution, where they specify that it must be "an HCE, or" ............... so I don't see any prohibition about specifically naming an HCE as excluded. But I'll ask this - why? Given that documents can provide complete flexibility to exclude all HCE's, but make a "discretionary" Safe Harbor to "any or all" HCE's - what would be the point of limiting the flexibility by specifically naming one HCE?
  2. Thanks
    Belgarath got a reaction from Peter Gulia in Exclude HCE from 3% safe harbor nonelective   
    At least some pre-approved documents provide for an "other" election for excluding participants from the Safe Harbor contribution, where they specify that it must be "an HCE, or" ............... so I don't see any prohibition about specifically naming an HCE as excluded. But I'll ask this - why? Given that documents can provide complete flexibility to exclude all HCE's, but make a "discretionary" Safe Harbor to "any or all" HCE's - what would be the point of limiting the flexibility by specifically naming one HCE?
  3. Like
    Belgarath reacted to C. B. Zeller in Mandatory 20% withholding on hardship distribution not paid.   
    A hardship is not an eligible rollover distribution, so there is no mandatory withholding.
    There is 10% automatic withholding but that can be waived. I don't see a problem here.
  4. Like
    Belgarath reacted to RatherBeGolfing in Limits when replacing SIMPLE-IRA mid-year with a Safe Harbor 401(k)   
    You include both catch-ups.  They could have drafted the language better, but the reason is that 414(v) is referenced in 402(g) but it is not referenced in 408(p).  That's why they mention it for the simple.
  5. Like
    Belgarath reacted to Peter Gulia in Plan was a MEP, but no one knew it...   
    What Paul I says.
    And, if the plan or its administrator is or was advised by a lawyer, consider that the independent qualified public accountant might want, in addition to the administrator’s management-representations letter, the lawyer’s letter to confirm that she has not “given substantive attention” to the plan’s contingent liability (or contingent gain) beyond those management disclosed.
  6. Like
    Belgarath reacted to Paul I in Plan was a MEP, but no one knew it...   
    The instructions to the Form 5500 include this note:
    Note. An amended filing must be submitted as a complete replacement of the previously submitted filing. You will need to resubmit the entire form, with all required schedules and attachments, through EFAST2. You cannot submit just the parts of the filing that are being amended.
    The reason EFAST2 takes this approach is when a form is amended, the existing filing is removed from the system and the amended is added into the system.
    In the described situation, an amended filing will need to include the audit report for the year being amended.  It seems that the auditors need to answer the question whether anything changes in the audit report, if any new audit steps need to be taken in this situation, and if nothing changes in the audit report, that the auditor stands by the original audit report as valid.
    My bet is the audit report will need to be reissued.  Hopefully the audit firm will rely on its previous and only charge a fee for work impacted by the change to a MEP filing.
     
  7. Like
    Belgarath got a reaction from Bill Presson in Improperly Excluded Employee: Employee Does NOT Want a QNEC   
    Interesting line of thought.
  8. Like
    Belgarath got a reaction from RatherBeGolfing in Improperly Excluded Employee: Employee Does NOT Want a QNEC   
    Agreed! And even if you went to a VCP filing on this (which would be an absurd waste of time and money IMHO) I'm very dubious that the IRS would approve it.
     
  9. Like
    Belgarath reacted to RatherBeGolfing in Improperly Excluded Employee: Employee Does NOT Want a QNEC   
    What rule/mechanism can you cite for a retroactive opt-out? 
    I honestly don't care about what the participant wants.  This is a plan issue, you correct and move on.  Do not make the situation worse by trying to do what they "want" instead of just doing what is right.
  10. Like
    Belgarath got a reaction from Mr Bagwell in Alternative Investment   
    It's a sticky situation.
  11. Haha
    Belgarath reacted to Gilmore in Alternative Investment   
    I wonder if divying up the horse when time comes for a distribution is where the term "quarter horse" comes from.
  12. Like
    Belgarath got a reaction from Bill Presson in Rollover Amounts for In-Service Distributions; Available for Age 59.5 Distributions, Perhaps Hardship Distributions   
    Brilliant!! Brightens up an otherwise garbage Monday morning. Gracias!
  13. Thanks
    Belgarath got a reaction from Peter Gulia in Bonus Election When Paid w. Regular Payroll   
    Here's the wording on our document, FWIW...
    The following are optional administrative provisions. The Administrator may implement procedures that override any elections in this Section without a formal Plan amendment. In addition, modifications to these procedures will not affect an Employer's reliance on the Plan.
     
  14. Like
    Belgarath reacted to Bri in Bonus Election When Paid w. Regular Payroll   
    That sounds appropriate, but really comes down to the Plan Administrator interpreting the document and its standard operating procedures conforming to Its interpretation.
    So if the bonus were a separate paycheck, he'd have gotten $200 total that week, I suppose.
  15. Haha
    Belgarath reacted to C. B. Zeller in Rollover Amounts for In-Service Distributions; Available for Age 59.5 Distributions, Perhaps Hardship Distributions   
    Verily, and with great haste, thou shalt consulteth thy plan's governing documents and discover therein the answers thou seekest.
    Should fortune smile upon thee, thou may findest that thy plan be graced with a determination letter, be it sealed by the hand of the wise ones who dwell within the halls of the Internal Revenue Service, granting reliance upon the terms found therein. In that happy moment, thou shalt knowest that thy plan's allowances of in-service distribution of rollover accounts shall never be said to fail to satisfy the requirements of section 401.
  16. Like
    Belgarath reacted to Bill Presson in Rollover Amounts for In-Service Distributions; Available for Age 59.5 Distributions, Perhaps Hardship Distributions   
    Once money is rolled into the plan, it’s rollover money and it doesn’t matter what it was in the other plan. Our plans (almost) always allow participants to take a distribution of rollover money at any time. 
     
    Read the document and it will tell you. 
  17. Like
    Belgarath reacted to CuseFan in New company formed mid-year - effective date of January 1 for plan?   
    Agree with Paul and seem to remember a similar discussion on this topic not that long ago that came to the same consensus.
  18. Like
    Belgarath got a reaction from Luke Bailey in In-Plan Roth Conversion & 2024 RMD   
    I'm certainly no investment expert or tax strategist either. I have sometimes seen a strategy where part of the "diversification" is that the "aggressive" investments are converted to Roth, on the theory that if they hit a home run and get big returns, it'll be tax free. The conservative investments remain as pre-tax.
  19. Like
    Belgarath reacted to Bri in Mandatory Federal Withholding - Form W4-R   
    of course they could roll the proceeds to an IRA, avoid the 20% withholding, and then turn around and raid the IRA without mandatory withholding.
  20. Like
    Belgarath reacted to Paul I in In-Plan Roth Conversion & 2024 RMD   
    With Roth accounts in 401(k) plans not being subject to the RMD rules, some people without other taxable income other than Social Security are looking to reduce prospective current year income below the threshold that triggers taxation of their Social Security benefits.  Add in the potential exemption of earnings from taxable income from the Roth accounts, this may be an attractive option for someone who is betting on living longer than their average life expectancy.
    There also are individuals who see the sun setting in 2025 on the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act provisions and they are anticipating a hike in their personal rates.
  21. Like
    Belgarath reacted to Bill Presson in In-Plan Roth Conversion & 2024 RMD   
    i get this strategy, I'm just questioning the age at which it's being done.
  22. Like
    Belgarath got a reaction from Bill Presson in In-Plan Roth Conversion & 2024 RMD   
    I'm certainly no investment expert or tax strategist either. I have sometimes seen a strategy where part of the "diversification" is that the "aggressive" investments are converted to Roth, on the theory that if they hit a home run and get big returns, it'll be tax free. The conservative investments remain as pre-tax.
  23. Like
    Belgarath got a reaction from AlbanyConsultant in mandatory cash out woes   
    Peter, this compliment is long overdue. You are without question one of the most objective and fair minded observers I've encountered, as well as being a great source of information.
    If you decide to run for higher office, I'll vote for you! 
  24. Like
    Belgarath reacted to Peter Gulia in 401(k) Hardship Withdrawal   
    A value of deciding claims using only a § 401(k)(14)(C) certification is that the plan’s administrator is removed—and its service provider too is removed—from discretionary decision-making about questions of the kind Ilene Ferenczy and Paul I describe.
    Instead, a plan’s administrator designs (or approves its service provider’s design of) the claim form to state each of the available deemed hardships, and not ask for any supporting information. Likewise, a service provider designs the participant website’s software to not receive any information beyond the online claim form.
    The claims procedure can be simplified (mostly) to approving a claim if the form is completed “in good order” and signed under penalties of perjury. Or NIGOing a form not filled-out or not signed.
    But shouldn’t an employer that serves as its plan’s administrator (and service providers too) welcome a procedure that gets rid of discretionary decisions?
  25. Like
    Belgarath got a reaction from SSRRS in What do you get out of your participation on these message boards?   
    Ditto on previous comments. While I've been able to help some people, I have to say this board has been a net gain for me - I've learned so much over the years. There is also great comfort in knowing that other professionals struggle with many of the same issues, and there often isn't a perfect answer/solution. And, many a time when I'm chasing my own tail, someone looking at a question with fresh eyes sees the solution instantly, and I think to myself, "You darned fool, why didn't you think of this already!" Many times I have saved a great deal of time due to the helpful comments and advice available here. It's a great resource for experienced professionals, AND for newbies.
×
×
  • Create New...