ratherbereading

No, the interest rate is not hard coded into our documents.

The participant was a NHCE and the interest rate was a small amount higher.

This happened to one of my plans and we left as is. The plan was stuck with the terms, incorrect as they were.

I don't think you can change the terms of the promissory note that the participant signed even if the plan requires a different interest rate because the note is a contract between the plan and the participant.

This was really interesting. I've been doing this since 2001 and have never had to provide a memo to the trustee, just an email with the report.

I've never heard of the Padilla memo. When our TPA provides the allocation to our clients, our software splits everything up between 401k/PS/Safe harbor. That's what we give to our client. Same procedure in the last TPA I worked for. Usually my client is also the trustee.

99% of our documents don't have an auto rollover option- -participants are cashed out if their balance is $200 or less. Our $125 fee is taken out of that. If our fee eats up their balance, they get zero.

The TPA I work for charges $125 per distribution regardless of the balance since that is what's noted in the fee schedule. So if someone has a balance of $100, it all goes to the distribution fee. Hope that helps.

Is the match discretionary? If so, they aren't obligated to make it even though they promised. If employer contributions are deposited more than 30 days after the federal tax return due date, these contributions will count toward the 404 (I know you said that's not an issue) and 415 limit for the following year. If the employer contributions are deposited after the federal tax return due date, the 404 and 415 limit could need closer review and potentially be problematic

Not my call. I don't own the TPA for whom I work.

What actually makes them nightmares is multiple loans and clients who make incorrect payments or no payments. I encourage my clients not to include loans. People need to manage their finances!

I have a question on #3 -- excise tax is not paid to the plan, it's paid to the IRS on the Form 5330, so not sure what you're asking. Also, our TPA is very strict about not using the DOL calculator unless the late deposits are being corrected through the VFCP program.

This is why loans are a nightmare and shouldn't be offered in a plan!

I would say yes because it's a new hardship.

Thanks all!

Yes, I guess I am!

I have a plan with one owner (dentist) and 5 participants. Each year they do a profit sharing and a safe harbor contribution. The money is at LPL Financial and each participant receives their own statement and they cannot direct their investments. The dentist prefunds the profit sharing and safe harbor contributions during the year by depositing the funds into his own account. Every other year it seems, they fail to transfer the participants' profit sharing and safe harbor amounts out of his account. The participants are clueless, and in the meanwhile, the owner is getting an unfair advantage as fair as gains. I have tried telling them they need to prefund it into a plan checking account, not into the owners account, but so far they are ignoring me. Any ideas on how I can convince them not to do this?

I've done several plan terminations and had 1 client decide to get a DL. If it's a plan with no issues and the document is in order, I don't see a reason for a DL, but as someone said, it's up to the client.

Thanks everyone!

Yes, it's still a late deposit. I've had that issue before and it was treated the same as if there were 100 non-owners affected.

Thank you ESOP Guy!

Thanks Mike!

I have a plan with 5,000 plus EEs in it. The previous admin put it into Relius years ago, then took it out and did everything manually for the past few years. I have been working for months getting it back into Relius. Plan eligibility is 21/1 M.O.S./monthly entry dates. When I run the ADP test, Relius is not agreeing with my excludable EEs and I wonder if it's because the complete history is not in Relius. Relius is excluding 300 plus people I think should be on the test. For example, one person has a date of hire of 5/15/2016. Date of term is 8/7/2017. Did not work 1000 hours in 2016 or 2017. Is that why Relius is excluding them? But then, I have someone who hired on 5/16/2016, and worked 930 hours in 2016 and 1,000 plus 2017 and term'd after July 2017 it's excluding them as well. Third example, someone hired on 5/16/2016 and worked 1000 hours in 2016 and 2017 and term'd after July 2017 and they are excluded. I might be getting confused with this because it's such a huge plan. Not sure if I should just go with what Relius is spitting out or change 300 people to be on the test ... Thanks!!

Happy mother's day to her! And what a wonderful tribute. My mom is 97 and I am also thankful that God has been so good to me!

I actually prefer an integrated design. I have quite a few plans with older owners who hire their younger kids and then the new comp no longer works.