khn

Does the special special Hurricane relief under Announcement 2017-13 apply only to people who have their primary residence in an area affected by the hurricane, or if someone owns a vacation home in an affected area would they be able to obtain a hardship or loan under the bill? I'm assuming it's intended to assist those who live in the affected areas, but since the IRS is also relaxing procedural and administrative rules that normally apply to retirement plan loans and hardship distributions what documentation would you considered as required?

Looking for your professional opinions...a plan has company stock as an option in their 401(k) plan and realizes the fiduciary responsibilities around it. They are considering limiting the percentage an employee can contribute to stock and some other possibilities. However, the stock has always done very well and they are proud of it. The question is in their annual company town hall meetings, the CEO usually shows some information on how well the stock has always performed, how much they would have if they invested $100 in it 25 years ago, etc. Could this be considered 'promoting' the stock as an investment in the 401(k) plan? He doesn't specifically mention that the stock is available in the plan during these meetings, but we're wondering if there should at least be some kind of disclosure language included in his future presentations. Any opinions are appreciated.

A number of law firms seem to have 2 separate plans for Partners and Associates. I understand the goal is probably to allow the partners to receive a greater profit sharing contribution...is this the main reason? Forgive my ignorance on plan design but isn't it more efficient and less expensive to encompass all levels of the firm in one plan?

A client added his brother's company to their plan in 2016. The recordkeeper forwarded a participation agreement, the client signed in error, and the plan was set up as a related participating employer. Since its not part of a controlled group with the other entities, can this be self-corrected by retroactively amending the plan to be a multiple employer plan?

Is it permissible to have one plan document for a 403(b) plan, but different provisions at different vendors? For example, can Roth contributions be added only at Fidelity and not TIAA or Valic, if it's written into a custom plan document?

This is a new one... a plan received a letter from an attorney for a disgruntled ex-participant demanding the employer vest his match 100%. The employer told him they must operate the plan in accordance with the plan document and provided him a copy of the SPD, but the attorney continues to ask for proof that they can't do it. Any ideas for other documentations? We can't find anything specifically citing that overriding vesting for 1 participant is prohibited.

This payroll system has catch-ups set up as a separate money type. This participant makes close to $700k a year, so the payroll system is capping his salary at $270, then calculating his 6% deferral election based on $270k * 6% = $16,200 as 'regular' elective deferrals, then the next $6k is classified as catch-up. So i agree, this seems incorrect and he should be allowed to contribute $18k + $6k catchup for a total of $24k. I'm not sure why some companies have catchups set up as a separate money type, it seems unnecessary.

Thanks for your feedback, it's much appreciated!

An employee's salary is capped at $270k and they've elected to contribute 6%. The payroll system is capping them at 270K * 6% = $16,200 and reclassifying the next $6k above that as catch-up since he's over 50. However, they are paid biweekly and the only plan-imposed limitation is participants can contribute up to 50% of compensation, so i believe they should be allowed to contribute $18k, barring any HCE limitations. Am i thinking about this correctly?

We have a 403b plan that has 2 individual annuity contracts that were grandfathered from an older arrangement. The current plan does not offer the annuities as an investment, but the company has been handling the remittance of their contributions. The plan is converting to another rk so we want to stop this manual process. Are there any formal notification requirements other than telling the 2 participants we won't be remitting the contributions on their behalf anymore? I can't seem to find anything on this type of situation and would love to hear people's thoughts.

If a plan document states employees can contribute up to 100% of salary and doesn't specify capping HCE's, but HR typically limits HCE contributions to 8% each year due to testing issues, are there any formal notification requirements for this limit? For example, does a notice need to be sent 30 days before plan year end, etc? I can't find any info on this but it seems like notification would be fair in order to allow HCEs to plan accordingly.

Thank you all for validating my anger:)

Please tell me if this is reasonable. A certain (well-known ) recordkeeper has told a client that based on their history of not failing ADP/ACP testing, the testing, which they pay an extra fee for, cannot be scheduled for completion within the first 2 1/2 months of the plan year end. If they do end up needing refunds, the Plan will be responsible for the risk and responsibilities of any failure. Am I wrong for thinking this is totally unacceptable?

Exactly...the person is 63 and included a percentage that would get her to the desired catchup for the first time, but our vendor requires a separate catchup election form be completed. Because she didn't complete it, she was capped at $18k. Seems illogical to me.

This is a case of someone who is already participating adjusting their deferrals to allow for catchup contributions; according to our plan document we only allow deferral changes to be made on the quarterly enrollment dates. I think step one is we need to revise our procedures so participants are more clear on the process. Thank you for your response.

Our plan has quarterly enrollments. A participant wanted to begin catch-ups with the quarterly enrollment. She adjusted her deferral to accommodate for the amount, but due to some miscommunication did not realize she had to also fill out a separate form to elect that she wanted to sign up for catchups. I feel that we can self correct this and begin her catch ups now since it only a single situation and caught right away, rather than wait until the next enrollment period in January. Is my thinking correct?

Thanks for all your insight. It almost seems too simple (which doesn't seem to happen a lot)!

We've been capping HCE's at 8% to avoid testing failures and refunds. A participant has been deferring 5% all year but now wants to maximize her contribution for the rest of the year. We have quarterly changes so she can increase her deferral to 8% on 10/1, and is over 50 so will also elect catch up contributions as well. My question is how can we help her have the maximum withholding possible? Is there a way to set up her catch up contribution to take advantage of the full $6,000 between now and year end? Any ideas would be appreciated.

Sorry, i should have been more clear with my question. This is what's on the IRS webstite: April 30, 2017, is the extended deadline for any defined contribution pre-approved plan adopted on or after January 1, 2016, other than a plan that is adopted as a modification and restatement of a defined contribution pre-approved plan that had been maintained by the employer prior to January 1, 2016. This extension is to facilitate a plan sponsor’s ability to convert an existing individually designed plan into a current defined contribution pre-approved plan. See Notice 2016-3. Hence my confusion..

Thanks for your reply. I'm specifically wondering about IRS Announcement 2014-16 that says this extension is to facilitate a plan sponsor's ability to convert an existing individually designed plan into a current defined contribution pre-approved plan.

Say an individually designed plan document was last restated effective January 1, 2011. They are supposed to restate every 5 years, which would have been January 1, 2016, but if they haven't they still have the option to move to a pre-approved document as long as they do it by April 30, 2017 - is that correct?

Thanks for your reply. I forgot to mention these are two plans under the same University so no change of ownership.

A company has a board resolution saying a plan will be merged as of April 1st, with contributions into the plan ceasing before that, at the prior year end. If administratively the actual conversion of assets cannot happen until April 30th, is that an issue? Does a new resolution need to be enacted?

A university has several small plans they are merging into their main plan. The recordkeeper that is receiving the funds says the accounts can be merged in as a rollover. We argue that records should come over as in a normal conversion (i.e., ee and er money broken out by source). Thoughts?

A plan makes the decision to switch to a Stable Value fund with a slightly lower rate in order to reduce recordkeeping fees. I can't find what notice, if any, is required to participants. Would this be considered a 'fund change' that would require 30 days notice in order for the plan to receive 404c protection?