Tom Poje

not sure what you are asking. the onstructions say: For example, in the case of a 2009 plan year or a calendar 2010 plan year, the Form 8955-SSA is not required to be filed before January 17, 2012. See Announcement 2011-21, 2011-12 I.R.B. 567, and in "Employee Plans News", Issue 2011-5, June 22, 2011, page 3, 2009 Form 8955-SSA and 2010 Form 5500-EZ Released. The January 17, 2012 due date may not be extended by filing Form 5558, Application for Extension of Time To File Certain Employee Plan Returns. since the form was not due until 1/17/2012 then no extension was needed. Then the instructions indicate the 1/17/2012 due date may not be extended (at least by filing form 5558.) Is there another method I am not aware of to extend the SSA?

fortunately your topic title was enough to get my attention. of course the 'extra' to bring up to the gateway is not safe harbor, so maybe vesting will come into play.

I'll assume this is a profit sharing plan and not a voluntary benefit plan. coverage only cares about :Did you get something?", not "how much" so for the nonelective portion everyone received so plan as a whole passes. but since you have different rates then further testing is needed. the regs use the example of some people receiving top-heavy and other receiving the total contribution. usually this is not a problem because more than 70% of the NHCEs receive more than top heavy, so plan would pass on an allocation basis anyway. you are not so lucky. might pass on an allocation basis and impute disparity, but that depends on how much was actually allocated. if testing on an accrual basis, you would probably have to bump the one person up to the gateway (1/3 the HCE rate or 5%) you can not impute disparity on the safe harbor piece.

my guess is that you provided the necessary info when you provided the distribution notice. the IRS just indicated this in a new Q and A A plan administrator may answer “yes” to question 8 if the required information was timely furnished to participants in other documentation such as benefit statements or distribution forms. A separate statement designed specifically to satisfy this requirement is not required. http://www.irs.gov/retirement/article/0,,id=252298,00.html

there might be language elsewhere in the document. for example, one of our documents says: Notwithstanding the foregoing, after the end of each Plan Year, the Company may make an additional Matching Contribution on behalf of each Participant in the amount of the positive difference, if any, between the Matching Contributions that would have been allocated to his Account had such contributions been determined on the basis of Compensation for the entire Plan Year and the Matching Contributions previously allocated to such Participant's Account. this was the description from the document in regards to the match contribution.

a rollover from an unrelated source is not used in top heavy testing - no matter what date it was rolled in, no matter how much gains, no matter what.

there is a formula (NRD) to check to see if NRD is different than what plan specs indicates it should be. (e.g. date of birth was changed after eligibility was run. the system will never make a NRD later than what it was unless you tell it recalc during eligibility) modified the formula to: if {RPTEE.EEPLANSTATCD} = "I" then " " else if {PLANDYN.MINAGENRYRS} >{PLANEE.NRAGE} then "Check retirement date" that way ineligibles don't print a message to check the retirement date. (I removed the color as well) if you downloaded the report you would have to do the same if you don't want the message to appear on ineligibles.

since the calculator is an acceptable means for calculating lost earnings on late deferrals, it would probably fall within the guidelines, if the plan was ever audited.

it is possible that your document describes how to handle. For example, the final 415 regulation language supplied by Corbel had the following: but you have to make this election - you can't pick and choose. Administrative delay ("the first few weeks") rule. 415 Compensation for a limitation year shall not include, unless otherwise elected in Section 2.2 of this Amendment, amounts earned but not paid during the limitation year solely because of the timing of pay periods and pay dates. However, if elected in Section 2.2 of this Amendment, 415 Compensation for a limitation year shall include amounts earned but not paid during the limitation year solely because of the timing of pay periods and pay dates, provided the amounts are paid during the first few weeks of the next limitation year, the amounts are included on a uniform and consistent basis with respect to all similarly situated participants, and no compensation is included in more than one limitation year.

the instruction indicates the follwoing: A participant is not required to be reported on Form 8955-SSA if, before the date the Form 8955-SSA is required to be filed (including any extension of time for filing), the participant: 1. Is paid some or all of the deferred vested retirement benefit (see the Caution below), Caution! top If payment of the deferred vested retirement benefit ceases before ALL of the participant's benefit is paid to the participant or beneficiary, information on the participant's remaining benefit shall be filed on the Form 8955-SSA filed for the plan year following the last plan year within which the payment ceased. ...... based on that, because the 8955 wasn't required until real real soon, I think you have an out. but then, that is only my thought. emphasis from instruction was mine.

the guidelines described in Section 3.01(3) are sufficient but note that the last sentence of 3.01 says "Other earnings adjustmrnt methods, different from those illustratedin this section 3 may also be appropriate for adjusting corrective contributions or allocations to reflect earnings.

we listed everyone as well. It was simply easier to do since I could pull all the data from the software. in addition, since the auditors look at the report, it was easier to report everything rather than trying to pull out the people from 1/1/09. the account reports from the investment house I think are formatted in hieroglythics, which is even more fun for the auditors and me.

as a general rule: each person is in only one component plan (the regs actually imply you could have more than 2 but I'm not sure if that would help) Each component plan satisfies 410(b) Each component plan satisfies a(4) a coponent plan satisfies Avg ben Pct test if the plan of which it is part satisfies avg ben pct test. you can't use to satisfy the gateway the plan as a whole still must satisfy 410(b) as well

you have me curious as to why you would component a NHCE by himself. it would serve no purpose. you end up treating him as a 0 when looking at the accrual portion, so why not just include him in the accrual test with a small e-bar?

but see also 1.401(m)-2(b)(5) example 7 ee was 60% vested ACP distribution is 1000 could distribute 600 and forfeit 400 or distribute 1000 and then 'track the vesting' i.e. after 2 more years the person would be 100% vested so no forfeiture needed.

lets suppose I have a plan that matches deferrals but not catch up contributions. plan matched $ for $. fails ADP so some deferrals are treated as catch up. 1.414(v)-1(d)(2)(iii) says "matching contributions with respect to such elective deferrals are permitted to be forfeited under the rules..." would you interpret that to say "I'm permitted to, but don't have to?" but all that aside, the same regs that say 'may' also go on to say that the safe harbor is not subject to the QNEC rules (you hae to test a(4) with and without a QNEC) but rather that the safe harbor is treated as a nonelective (though every where else a safe harbor is defined as a QNEC) so I think in this case the 'may' simply means normally you treat QNECs one way, but in this case you may (or possibly better) "you handle things this way because its an exception to the rule. ....... somewhere buried in the ERISA Outline Book is a discussion about "may". I don't think its in context with safe harbors, but as I recall its a similar situation.

Publication 4810 for electronically filing for 8955-SSA requires that the totals equal each other: .17 The count of total participants reported in positions 568-575 of the Sponsor “S” Record does not equal the count of Participant “P” Records received the instructions clearly say Use Form 8955-SSA to report information about separated participants with deferred vested benefits under the plan. Report participants who have a deferred vested benefit under the plan and who: separated from service covered by the plan; were reported as deferred vested participants on another plan's filing if their benefits were transferred (other than in a rollover) to the plan during the covered period; previously were reported under the plan but have been paid out or are no longer entitled to those deferred vested benefits; or previously were reported under the plan but whose information is being corrected. I think the person who wrote line 6 saw "separated participants with deferred vested benefits under the plan" which would seem to exclude "D" people rather than "information about separated participants with deferred vested benefits under the plan" .... by the way, a recent ASPPA ASAP also noted the discrepency between the paper instructions and the electronic instructions.

been awhile since I posted this report. this version of the census report should provide a variety of 'warnings' 1. years from term date to report year end. (added this due to the number of takeovers we've done and forget to enter break in svc years. this should only print if ee has been gone at least 4 years to find people who should possibly forfeit) 2. ee has prior year term date but current comp /hours. must be a rehire that was imported 3. message if ee is age 69 or older (for possible min distribution) 4. Date of birth warning (rare, but I've seen bad centuries from time to time from an import) 5. NRD check - just in case someone's birthdate has changed for whatever reason. e.g. if it was 1970 and it was corrected to 1980, the system won't change the retirement date unless specifically told to recalc during eligibiility) 6. comp is 0 but the person is still active. guess they didn't tell you the person quit in the prior year. 7. inactive or ineligible, but no reason is given 8. inactive but no status date.

so its top heavy and to avoid putting in a vested top heavy minimum, you want to go with a safe harbor to become 'top-heavy free' so to speak. of course, not much is gained if you go 3% safe harbor, in fact you lose ground because its 100% vetsed. in fact, terminees receive as well. so hopefully you mean a basic match, which could backfire if enough people defer 5%. but then if enough people defer 5% you would probably pass ADP testing anyway.

ESOP guy : I didn't interpret your comments as a challenge. sorry if it sounded like that. when we send the hard copy to the client we tell them they should sign and keep a copy in their records, but we don't follow up and ask they send back proof they actually signed. I believe we also included "DON"T SEND THIS TO THE IRS.WE DID THAT FOR YOU" or maybe it was something like "please please we beg you dont send this to the IRS. simply sign and bury it in the drawer with the 5500 you pronted and signed.

the long winded answer (from EPCRS Appendix A 06 Failure to timely pay the minimum distribution required under § 401(a)(9). In a defined contribution plan, the permitted correction method is to distribute the required minimum distributions (with earnings from the date of the failure to the date of the distribution). The amount required to be distributed for each year in which the initial failure occurred should be determined by dividing the adjusted account balance on the applicable valuation date by the applicable distribution period. For this purpose, adjusted account balance means the actual account balance, determined in accordance with § 1.401(a)(9)-5 Q&A-3, reduced by the amount of the total missed minimum distributions for prior years. In a defined benefit plan, the permitted correction method is to distribute the required minimum distributions, plus an interest payment representing the loss of use of such amounts. ................ all that being said you are supposed to follow the following process (or at least these are the notes I have picked up over the years from other sources): You can’t ask for the penalty to be waived until you have actually taken the distribution. This is proof you are trying to fix the situation as soon as possible. Fill out form 5329. Write letter begging for mercy, explaining the reason you didn’t receive the minimum distribution was the incompetence of the investment house or something similar. Years ago, it was required to send in the 50% penalty and hope the IRS would have leniency and waive the penalty and return the money. Now simply send in the letter with the Form 5329, and if they don’t accept your lame excuse they will bill you. ............. Finally, of course we all know these things are never our fault, but the following sums up well the situation It's not my job to run the train. The whistle I don't blow. It's not my job to say how far, the train's supposed to go. I'm not allowed to pull the brake, or even ring the bell. But let the damn thing leave the track, And see who catches hell!

They did add 2 new items to the 8955-ssa Q and A pertaining to 403bs. don't know if that helps or not Does the Form 8955-SSA filed for 2009 by a 403(b) plan sponsor have to report participants who separated from service prior to 2008 with a deferred vested benefit under the plan? Generally, no. Form 8955-SSA filed for 2009 generally only has to report participants who separated from service in 2008. Thus, participants with a 403(b) contract or account who separated from service prior to 2008 are not required to be reported on the Form 8955-SSA filed for 2009 (or for any subsequent year). However, a participant should be reported on the Form 8955-SSA filed for 2009 if that participant separated from service in a year before 2008 and began receiving payments under the contract or account, but the payments stopped in 2008 before all of the participant’s benefits were paid. See the Instructions for 2009 Form 8955-SSA. See also Question and Answer 2 for an exception that applies even in the case where payments stopped in 2008. ... Does a 403(b) plan sponsor have to report all participants who separated from service after 2007 with a deferred vested benefit under the plan? No. A plan sponsor is not required to report a separated participant if the participant’s deferred vested benefits are attributable to an annuity contract or custodial account that is not required to be treated as part of the section 403(b) plan assets for purposes of the reporting requirements of ERISA Title I, as set forth in DOL Field Assistance Bulletin (FAB) 2009-02. For this exception to apply, (1) the contract or account would have to have been issued to a current or former employee before January 1, 2009, (2) the employer would have ceased having any obligation to make contributions (including employee salary reduction contributions), and in fact ceased making contributions to the contract or account before January 1, 2009, (3) all of the rights and benefits under the contract or account would be legally enforceable against the issuer or custodian by the participant without any involvement by the employer, and (4) the participant would have to be fully vested in the contract or account. For further information, please see DOL FAB 2009-02,

ft william has the following guideline Electronic Filing Process Requires No Signature Paper Form 8955-SSAs must have the plan administrator and plan sponsor sign the bottom of page 1. However, if the plan administrator and plan sponsor are the same person, then only the plan administrator need sign. At this time, there are no signing requirements to e-sign. However, it is good practice to send the completed form (on paper or pdf) and ask clients to review, sign and keep a paper copy for their records. ................ when the client files the 5500 electronically, do you also request a copy of the signed copy or do you assume they printed and signed a copy and keep it in their records?

I haven't seen this addressed in regards to profit sharing, but logically the same rules should apply as if you allowed someone to defer before being eligibile. EPCRS appendix B section 2.07 Correction by amendment. (3) Early Inclusion of Otherwise Eligible Employee Failure. (a) Plan Amendment Correction Method. The Operational Failure of including an otherwise eligible employee in the plan who either (i) has not completed the plan’s minimum age or service requirements, or (ii) has completed the plan’s minimum age or service requirements but became a participant in the plan on a date earlier than the applicable plan entry date, may be corrected by using the plan amendment correction method set forth in this paragraph. The plan is amended retroactively to change the eligibility or entry date provisions to provide for the inclusion of the ineligible employee to reflect the plan’s actual operations. The amendment may change the eligibility or entry date provisions with respect to only those ineligible employees that were wrongly included, and only to those ineligible employees, provided (i) the amendment satisfies § 401(a) at the time it is adopted, (ii) the amendment would have satisfied § 401(a) had the amendment been adopted at the earlier time when it is effective, and (iii) the employees affected by the amendment are predominantly nonhighly compensated employees. (b) Example Example 27: Employer L maintains a § 401(k) plan applicable to all of its employees who have at least six months of service. The plan is a calendar year plan. The plan provides that Employer L will make matching contributions based upon an employee’s salary reduction contributions. In 2007, it is discovered that all four employees who were hired by Employer L in 2006 were permitted to make salary reduction contributions to the plan effective with the first weekly paycheck after they were employed. Three of the four employees are nonhighly compensated. Employer L matched these employees’ salary reduction contributions in accordance with the plan’s matching contribution formula. Employer L calculates the ADP and ACP tests for 2006 (taking into account the salary reduction and matching contributions that were made for these employees) and determines that the tests were satisfied. Correction: Employer L corrects the failure under SCP by adopting a plan amendment, effective for employees hired on or after January 1, 2006, to provide that there is no service eligibility requirement under the plan and submitting the amendment to the Service for a determination letter. not sure what the effect of 'many years' would have.

no easy way I know. If someone was previously reported as an A, I would report them as a D. well actually, I can generate a report off the system I use to pull name, soc and automatically code as a D and then import into the SSA, so it is pretty easy if you have that capability.