Mr Bagwell

Tom, Appreciate your help, but one last try as this is not a must have at all. :) Here is a snap shot of what you see in plan specs. It's rather dull and unimpressive if a client asks to see the activity in forfeitures for the year. If asked for, we would copy the info and paste into excel to fancy up. We would add the names of the participants that had a forfeiture. We would say what the forfeiture suspense adjustment actually was. (example profit sharing or fees) I was just curious what others do and if they have a report they might be willing to share. Hope this makes sense. PS. The forfeitures do not share in the dividends? That could be a separate thread. Thanks

Tom, I was looking for the transactional data that you see in plan specs for forfeitures. (the ins and outs, dividends, etc) Except in a nice report. I don't know how to create anything from Crystal Reports..... I don't know of any report in standard reports or report writer that would do this for me. Thanks

Anyone have a decent forfeiture transactional report that they might be willing to share?

I feel like I chase my tail on these situations....and I have to talk it out with someone too. There is a control group of companies prior to the plan being adopted 10/1/2018. I'm assuming the plan was opened 10/1/2018 because of the folding of Company B as of 9/30/2018. Does that mean there are no employees as of 10/1/2018 for Company B? That is what I am assuming. So no one eligible to enter the A plan until 10/1/2018..... With no employees of Company B being eligible to enter the plan, it appears that there is no coverage issue because we are only concerned with the employees of Company A. You may have to count service, I'm just not sure by what mechanism. Would the plan need to specify the Company B. Does the Plan Document already have language that would cover the Company B employees? Sorry, I don't know. Those are the questions that come to my mind. Don't know if that helped.

Resolved. Let plan as is. I want to thank everyone for the comments. You confirmed what I was thinking, but just didn't want to miss anything. Bird's challenge of "make him understand that" was very timely. Thanks everyone.

Let's break this up a little bit..... If the plan ONLY makes deferrals and safe harbor contributions for the year, the plan is not subjected to the top heavy determination from the prior year end. Or to say another way, the plan may be top heavy, but with only deferrals and safe harbor contributions for the year, no top heavy contribution is required. If the plan would like to do profit sharing, the safe harbor status does not get them out of the top heavy rules. However, you would think the safe harbor 3% is going to cover the top heavy requirement. Just need to make sure non-keys are getting 3%. Sounds like the plan is teetering between being top heavy and not being top heavy. If that is the case, your profit sharing plan design is key to helping the plan become non top heavy. There is a good thread not that old that goes through the logic and design to spread the profit sharing love to help the plan teeter to the non top heavy side. However, that is going to require a little more money to non-keys.... owner may not like that scenario....

For those that read later looking for help..... It's not uncommon when reconciling weekly and bi-weekly payrolls to need the last payroll of the previous year, the last payroll of the year current year testing, and sometimes the first payroll of the newest year. Depending on what the employer/payroll provider is giving for payroll data, you have to drop a payroll and add a payroll to balance to w-2. If that doesn't solve your problem.. well, you know, get an individual's complete payroll dates and amounts, and start reconciling again. Sometimes the payroll end date gets set up as the paydate. Therefore the w-2s don't match. We try to get the paydate setup as the dates in relius. Seems to help the balancing immensely.

I agree with you Larry. Thanks for the input. Bird... I'm trying. :)

I'll throw my hat into the ring. Tom is HCE: greater than 5% owner Dave is HCE: greater than 5% owner due to attribution of son and daughter's ownership. Son and Daughter: NHCE. While 5% owners, they are not above 5%. They are not HCE on behalf of salary because it's not greater than 120,000.

Yes, there are payroll systems that will do what you would like. I think the issue is whether or not the people (HR, or payroll processer) coding the payroll system is doing what they are supposed to be doing.

I work at a place that does something similar. Sort of. We are bi-weekly paid, but some of our benefits are paid 24 times a year, like insurance...... 401k is done on bi-weekly schedule. They try to make the 3rd pay a month special or something...... I think they tried to do the 401k on the 24 times a year..... they got told no. I don't get it.

Plan has 1 year, 1000 hours, semi entry. IMO, this is a good design for the plan because the employer is keeping out the maximum number of employees to contain cost. There is enough part timers to warrant it. The plan is safe harbor match 100% of 5%. The employer is looking for a yearly entry, still keeping out the maximum he can. I told him the yearly entry is a problem because some employees that wouldn't make the 1 year, semi entry, would likely to come into the plan. He would like to steer clear of semi-entry because he missed an employee at 7/1 and had to make up some deferrals and sh match. I get it, he's tight, but that's his choice and he's following the rules. I'd do the same. I'm stumped, because I think the 1 year, 1000 hours, semi entry makes the most sense. Got any good scenarios?

Thanks everyone. I will check out the imputed service reg.

The issue that threw me off was the issue with gaining vesting in a plan that you didn't work.... you gained it in the other plan.

Can this be done? Plan A and Plan B are not a control group, but there is common ownership. The Employers would like the service from either plan to count for both plans. So Bob in plan A is hired and terminated with 2 years of service. Goes to work for Plan B, has a year of service. So his vesting in Plan A and Plan B would be 3 years of service. Oversimplification perhaps, but this is the scenario. Yes? No? Thoughts? If yes, have would you write the language in the plans?

Emphasis mine. ?? I read the detail from Derrin as saying if there is a child between married, divorce, or non-married, there is still a control group. Did I misunderstand your comments?

Years ago, I was at a Relius training and the speaker was telling a story about this same scenario. He said he and his neighbor was talking about 401ks and the neighbor told the speaker that he owned 100% of his business and the wife owned 100% of her business. I don't remember all the middle details of how and why they got onto the discussion, but the speaker gave the husband some warning that the two companies may be a controlled group because the speaker knew the couple had minor children and the husband may want to talk to his 401k provider. The husband inquired and said his provider did not consider this to be a control group. The speaker then told the husband to tell the 401k provider the IRS code to look up. To make a long story short, the speaker had worked for the IRS and helped write the code. (That's what he said) I understood that the speaker was nice to the neighbor as he was discussing the issue. The speaker did not drop the trump card that he helped write the code.....lol. That story is why I'm really cautious of the husband owns 100% of his company and the wife owns 100% of her company scenario..... my brain always says "do they have minor child/ren?".

Check out EOB 2013 edition 1A.36 and 1A37. There is a discussion on this very similar scenario. I'll closely type the section. Minor children attribution not disregarded. Although a husband and wife might not be attributed each other's ownership interests in the respective businesses, if the have minor children (under 21), other attribution rules may result in a controlled group relationship. Under the stated facts of the example, Husband and Wife are not attributed each other's ownership interests in their respective businesses. Normally then, Husband's wholly-owned corporation would not be part of a controlled group with Wife's wholly-owned corporation, because the companies have no common owners. But suppose they have a minor child. The minor child is attributed the stock in each company. This creates a controlled group relationship because the minor child, as the common owner by attribution, owns 100% of each company. Comment: controversy on this issue. .......At a Q&A session with the IRS at the 2012ASPPA annual conference, IRS representatives indicated that, until there is a statutory change made by Congress, the IRS would follow the literal wording of the statute.

Luke, The premise was that the minor children attributed all of the parents stock, therefore owning both businesses. Not that the spouse stock went to children, then children's stock went to other spouse.

One of the details/exceptions is whether there are minor children? I was taught that if there was minor children between the two, then the two plans are a control group.

Ok. See if you like.... Risk is all yours. Sometimes you have to chase the PS amount to get exactly where you want to be. Example: the partner wants to be maxed vs. a set amount of PS dollars. 2 -TIER Integrated.xlsx

Are you looking for a two tier integrated spreadsheet for calculating profit sharing?

Thanks for the clarification. I have thoughts, but I'll let someone else jump in first.

So the employer is trying to give a different PS to each location for 2017?

Is the OP a real scenario or hypothetical?