Archimage

rcline46's statement is the basis for my conclusion regarding full year's compensation.

I meant to say that is a SHNEC. I have consulted with an ERISA attorney and their position is that it depends on the plan document. It can go either way depending on the document language.

I have a profit sharing plan that is adding a 401(k) feature effective 10/1. It is my understanding that this can be based on the full plan year's compensation. The attorney is disagreeing with me. Can someone provide me with a cite or tell me I am wrong?

I agree. These must be included as assets reported on the schedule H. I would report it either a pooled separate account on line 10 or line 14 if it was not allocated to any participant(s).

For billing purposes I am wanting a report designed with the following: 1. Number of participants deferring. 2. Number of participants not deferring (with a balance). 3. Number of distributions processed in the given time frame. 4. Number of loans processed in the given time frame. 5. Number of loans outstanding. 6. Number of insurance policies. I talked to Corbel and they said it was possible but it would take too long and wouldn't do it. If there is anyone out there who would be interested in taking on this project for a fee please let me know.

That is what I thought but I wanted to be sure. Thanks.

Does Relius perform the function of not imputing disparity on SHNECs when running 401(a)(4) general non-discrimination test?

From the 5500 instructions... A "controlled group" is generally considered one employer for Form 5500 reporting purposes. A "controlled group" is a controlled group of corporations under Code section 414(b), a group of trades or businesses under common control under section 414©, or an affiliated service group under section 414(m).

Okay, guys. I concede. I see none of you are going to concede so I give up.

I agree mostly. I do think that an argument could be made the other way. Most standardized docs say that you have to be employed on the last day of the year and do not mention an hours requirement. Personally, I would never advise a client to take this approach. I am just trying to get you guys thinking!

No offense taken. Ultimately I think it is a matter of interpretation by the plan administrator and the conservative approach would be to accrue a benefit for those with more than 500 hours.

I am throwing this out there for discussion. I would normally agree but thought this might make an interesting topic to discuss. The standardized document (in most cases) imposes a last day rule for participants that are active. The hours requirement is only for terminated participants. Therefore the active participants do not accrue the benefit until 12/31/xx.

Available upon request.

Let me throw this out. Most standardized documents say that active participants must be employed on the last day of the plan year and the 500 hours requirement is for terminated participants. How does an active participant accrue a benefit if they have worked over 500 hours and the doc says you have to be employed on the last day of the plan year?

I am assuming you meant a 4% safe harbor match (based on the basic safe harbor match formula). You are correct that you do not have to worry about ADP/ACP testing. What test are you trying to pass with the avg benefit test? I am assuming you mean 410(b) coverage testing. You would first use the ratio % test. Since the plan has no other contributions it should pass coverage at 100%.

Only the calendar year.

Tbrown, are you using the daily platform along with the web modules?

If the effective date of your merger is 9/30/02 then you would not even file short plan year 5500. If your merger is 10/01/02 then you would file a 5500 for the plan year beginning 10/1 and ending 10/1.

I agree that this is not a controlled group. There is no common ownership among the two companies. Even if Owner 1 owned 51% this would not be a controlled group. The two employers could adopt a multiple employer plan to do what you want. I think it would easier to adopt two separate plans.

Anyone have any idea why my report is doing what it is doing from the last post?

What about ending balance?

I have been thinking about this and I can't think of a way that Relius can handle this. If I am losing a plan and want to provide an electronic file for everything to the new recordkeeper, is Relius capable of this?

Trying zipping the file. I had the same problem.

I have since modified the report again. I modified my non-deferring formula to be : if {RPTEEACCT.YTDENDBALAMT} > 0 and {RPTEE.YTDDEFERAMT} = 0 then 1 else 0. The problem I am running into is that it is counting a participant for as many investments he has. How could I modify the formula to look at his total ending balance?

The old loan is being replaced by the new loan. As long as the value of the old loan plus the value of the new replacement loan does not exceed 50% of the vested account balance, you are allowed to go beyond the original repayment period.