Mike Preston

Well, it works on my machine (although I didn't test every combination). You'll have to break it out to multiple statements to debug it, I'm afraid. Good luck.

I think you have it backwards, but we end up in the same place. There is an old post of Tom's which goes into the details so I won't go into them again here (He cites a published ASPA Q&A on the issue). As detailed in the ASPA Q&A the IRS has stated rather vociferously from the podium that the account balance, as that term is used in its most technical sense for top-heavy determination purposes, includes the accruals, even in a profit sharing plan. It has been my position (as well as the position of others in the industry like Sal and the 401(k) Answer Book) that the language of the regs precludes including profit sharing accruals and that they conform to what you have said: you include only legally required accruals which would typically ignore profit sharing plan accruals. So a plan sponsor can choose which position they feel is best for them with very little exposure. Here is a link to that old thread. Tom's post is not at the top, but it shouldn't be too hard to find. mike

Consider a partnership with 4 equal partners and no employees. It is not unusual to set up 4 separate plans, one for each of the partners. The partnership maintains 4 one-person plans. If it maintained 2 plans, each with 2 partners, then the partnership maintains 2 one-person plans (which I understand stretches the literal definition one would expect).

What the helly is a Jelly?

I have very little sympathy for those that claim they need to amend their returns. They got their money and should have been clamoring for their 1099's. Of course, no change to their taxes if their funds were rolled to IRA's.

Nobody here can provide you with the advice you are seeking. At one end of the spectrum you can, obviously, just accept the ex-wife prepared DRO. At the other end of the spectrum you can engage an attorney in your jurisdiction to see if they feel that the ex-wife prepared DRO should be modified and, if so, how. Good luck.

Post what the statement looks like now.

I understand your frustration. As I could have predicted, there is now confusion regarding the timing of various things. Now, I'll go further. Not only is it true that nobody can definitively answer your questions without seeing a copy of the plan document that you signed, but they would need to see the administrative reports for each year the plan has been in existence along with a detail transaction ledger of all deposits (contributions, deferrals) and all withdrawals showing the reason for the deposit/withdrawal. There is no shortcut. Good luck.

Not as far as I can tell. We've been demoted.

No. No.

...change the settings so that the old system of displaying the user names for those who "like" a post was in effect rather than the new system which just identifies the number of likes.

I'm quite comfortable up here, way up here, on whatever horse you think I'm perched. Most plan sponsors, no matter the size of the plan, don't want to commit fraud. Paychex might have done the plan sponsor a disservice by not adequately informing them of the top-heavy consequences, even to the point of potential liability should the plan sponsor choose to pursue damages, but I would seriously doubt they would knowingly participate in fraud.

What, pray tell, is the "mistake" to which you refer? Please don't tell me that it is along the lines of: "Well, if I was told about the consequences I wouldn't have deferred." While that may be a mistake it isn't something the Code or regulations allow one to "undo". Unless, of course, you are volunteering to assist with an EPCRS filing that incorporates your practical solution.

It seems that some of the large 401(k) providers are compartmentalized to the point that there are a number of issues that don't get addressed until the plan sponsor has very few options. Nobody can answer your questions without seeing a copy of the plan document that you signed. However, with that said the answers are: 1) It is probably not everybody, it is not even necessarily employees "eligible to the plan (6 months of service and over 21 years old) as of 12/31/2015" because not only do they need to satisfy the eligibility criteria they need to also satisfy the entry date criteria. Nobody can definitively answer your question without seeing a copy of the plan document that you signed. 2) Typically, top-heavy minimum contributions are not required for participants who have terminated before the end of the year. Nobody can definitively answer your question without seeing a copy of the plan document that you signed. 3) Typically, if the highest deferral rate for any key employee is 1% then the top-heavy minimum is also reduced to 1% from 3%. Nobody can definitively answer your question without seeing a copy of the plan document that you signed. 4) Typically, the top-heavy minimum allocation will be subject to a six year graded vesting schedule (0-20-40-60-80-100). Nobody can definitively answer your question without seeing a copy of the plan document that you signed. See a pattern? Straight out of the department of redundancy department: Nobody can definitively answer your questions without seeing a copy of the plan document that you signed. I would not "lean on" any service provider to commit fraud. Unless somebody thinks they can get the IRS to allow you and your partner's deferrals to be retroactively re-characterized, I would stay away from any manner of pretense. You need to hire a competent service provider to review the actual plan document and the actual history of the plan. Frankly, the first thing I'd take a look at is that 60.7% figure and make doubly sure that is being calculated correctly. If that number falls to less than 60% it renders the rest of this discussion moot. And while it is too late to do much for 2016, until this issue gets resolved you should take steps to eliminate any deferrals by any key employee for 2017 (probably just you and your partner). Good luck.

And what were those answers?

I think the issue is whether the DRO is asking the plan to pay benefits to an alternate payee.

Carol, This issue does track back to the regulation you cited. Some background may be helpful. First, there is the March 13, 1998 IRS Memorandum from Robert Padilla which includes: "... the plan must provide that the trustee be given written notification from the employer as to the amount of the contribution to be allocated to each group." You will also be able to find various IRS representatives making statements that the plan sponsor must provide written instructions to the plan administrator or trustee. Some of those statements will include a requirement for contemporaneous instructions. Some won't. I've never been able to find anything definitive as to the required timing. The closest I've come is language from the current LRM's which reads: "The employer will specify in written instructions to the plan administrator or trustee, by no later than the due date of the employer´s tax return for the year to which the employer´s contribution relates, the portion of such contribution to be allocated to each participant allocation group." If anybody has anything more authoritative I'd love to see it. But based on the above, the document language you describe should easily pass muster.

... from the view of unread topics (condensed or otherwise) right click somewhere and get an option to: "Open each thread to next unread post in separate tabs" mike

No. No.

"I won't be able to individually target young NHCEs because they are also lumped together (just 3 tiers in plan overall...hundreds of people). " Have you considered letting the test fail and then adopting an 11(g) amendment which does exactly what you say you can't do?

BG, why do you say what you say about "as long as"?

A better example would have been to stick with the $20,000 total "Basic" allocation and shown that it would break down as $1,756.62 and $18,243.38. I didn't take the time to make sure that rounding was exact so you may get slightly different results.

Maybe I'm missing something, but if you layer a SHNEC of 3% over an integrated allocation using 100% of the TWB I can't see how testing on contributions will fail. Enlighten me?

There is nothing "wrong", per se. It is a multiple employer plan. Deal with it.

"Does this now need to be adjusted on the w2s for the year and included as elective deferrals?" No.