Briandfox

I found some stuff on this, what is scary is that this seems to be a non-taxable fringe benefit. As a result a plan sponsor would have to throw the value of it back in in determining plan compensation (guessing the premium payments). I doubt anyone would ever actually do that because it isn't reported anywhere.

I read the Revenue Ruling, but I still don't know what it is because it talks about the nature of the policy itself, but I still have no clue how this is even quantified and reported. Say for example, this comes up, what is it that is even included? Also since the Rev-Proc said it's not eligible for pre-tax treatment does an employee even pay the premium on such policy? If so isn't it from post-tax dollars that were otherwise part of W-2?

Sure, What if the person the participant claims to be the spouse, who is waiving the QJSA to support a lump sum distribution is not the spouse and someone else is? What back up does the PA have to support the distribution of the lump sum if another spouse comes forward? Would be good to have something to support the distribution form. It's just such a shady concept in practice and the only reason why it came up in this context is because the PA requires a copy of a marriage certificate.

These definitions usually require a period of "cohabitation" and holding out as married. It puts the Plan and PA in the situation of having to take a someone at their word.

I am hair pulling on deemed 125 Compensation. The document provider we used for EGTRRA included deemed 125 Compensation by default in the flush document. However, the PPA restatement now offers a choice as to whether or not deemed 125 Compensation should be included or excluded. Does anyone know what this even is? How it is quantified? How is it something that would otherwise ever be excluded from Compensation if it is a benefit that is provided to employees in the ordinary course of their employment, and even if it was included wouldn't it be summarily excluded if we excluded taxable fringe benefits? Very confused.

Thanks guys- I am will to assume common law marraige is marraige and gives rise to an eligible spouse for purposes of benefits. My concern is more about proof. I agree that a redacted page 1 of a joint income tax return is helpful. Any other ideas? Thanks

A participant is receiving standard distribution paperwork as part of a plan termination and claims to be married through a Common Law Marraige. The participant says they don't have a copy of marriage certificate, which we standardly require and that such certificates do not exist in this case. Questions? What is standardly requested (to protect the plan administrator) to prove the existence of a Common Law Marriage? Is Common Law Marriage recognized under ERISA (I assume that it is, if it is a legal marriage in the state of "celebration" and because people in a common law marriage can file joint income tax returns)? Thanks

Election Form dated in 2014, honoring it for 2014 and a 1099-R issued for 2014, I wish my issues resolved as perfectly. Good Job.

Thanks all

The only question I would have had was when will the participant statement's reflect the money as Roth? A very conservative take on this would be that that is the date of conversion (instead of distribution). However as others have said the most important thing will be a 1099-R issued for the 2014 year showing the taxable amount. As long as a tax is recognized in 2014 and you have signed and dated election paperwork for the same year, I am sure you are fine.

Is it possible to suspend a non-safe harbor fixed tear match mid-year where the compensation determined for the match is annual? Example is 50% of the first 6% of compensation where the compensation determination is period is annual? Again this is a non-safe harbor match. I just want to know how/when this can be suspended midyear. Thanks

Unforunately, in operations the HCEs have been allowed to defer in spite of the fact that the plan document excludes them. Since this all happened in 2014 my thought was to retroactively amend the eligibility provisions of the safe harbor plan before the last day of the 2014 plan year so that everyone could keep their intended safe harbor contribution. I know some amendments can be adopted by the end of the plan year and be retroactively effective to the beginning of the year to conform the plan to operations. My gut tells me that this is not such an amendment because it relates to eligibility under safe harbor. The alternative is to do essentially the same thing anyway but submit under VCP.

Thanks, this is helpful. Is the alternative a VCP submission?

Plan that offers a basic safe harbor match to all NHCE's wants to expand eligibility to allow a definitely determinable class of HCE's to participate (midyear). I know midyear amendments to safe harbor plans are frowned upon, however, the same employees would be eligible both pre and post the amendment. This employer just wants to provide additional benefits to a subset of it's HCEs (same as the basic match). Can this be done? If not via a safe harbor contribution is there any alternative that can be done this year? Thanks

I am having the same issues. There are no current instructions regarding columns (vii); (viii); and (ix) that I can find. While I could take a stab at it the space allocated makes its extremely prohibitive. That and in situtations where the plan document is restated for discretionary reasons, I would not even begin to know how to accurately state what section is being amended, it's amendments over amendments. If you are pursuing a letter for initial qualification of a plan from the 90s, what would you do? Or what if you switch vendors and one uses section references in a different format then the subsequent one?

Don't know if this thread is still live, but here is a further question. If a PPA restatement is adopted with no modifications on the current cycle (May 2014 through April 2016) can it be submitted if the Plan Sponsor had adopted discretionary amendments following the last restatement cycle (ending April 2010). I understand that that the PPA restatement itself does not have to be reviewed because it is a volume submitter with no changes, but: 1. what if the Plan Sponsor wants a ruling on amendments that were adopted between that last restatement cycle and the current one? 2. What if the Plan Sponsor started a Plan in the 1980s and only adopts a volume submitter Plan now? What if any assurances can the Plan Sponsor get for initial qualification of the Plan? 3. How can a Plan Sponsor get reliance on discretionary amendments if the Plan Sponsor later adopts a volume submitter plan. Thanks

I recently reviewed Notice 2013-74 and it states: "the following contributions (and earnings thereon) may now be rolled over to a designated Roth account in the same plan, without regard to whether the amounts satisfy the conditions for distribution: elective deferrals in [section] 401(k) plans and [section] 403(b) plans; matching contributions and nonelective contributions, including qualified matching contributions and qualified nonelective contributions described in [section] 1.401(k)-6; and annual deferrals made to governmental [section] 457(b) plans. (The Federal government's Thrift Savings Plan is treated as a [section] 401(k) plan for this purpose.)" My question is if contributions from the plan's rollover account are also eligible for an in-plan Roth rollover and if the above is intended as an exhaustive list? Or, if any/all vested amounts in a 401(k) are eligible for an in-plan Roth Rollover? Thanks

On application for a favorable determination letter the IRS website states Interested parties generally include all: Present employees of the employer who are eligible to participate in the plan, and Other present employees of the employer whose principal place of employment is the same as that of the employees eligible to participate in the plan That would suggest that all current employees are always entitled to Notice to Interested Parties on application for a favorable determination letter. However, if a plan by design excludes out a certain class of employees from the eligibility provisions, for example "all highly compensated employees are not eligible to participate in the Plan" would the highly compensated employees still be considered interested parties entitled to notice? Or are they not interested parties under § 1.7476-1(b)(6)? Essentially, who is Not an Interested Party, Not entitled to Notice? Thanks