Tom Poje

well, you know total ADP% in 2010. or the grand total pct before dividing by the # of bodies. I suppose you could reverse the match in 2010 and this would give you total ADP % without match. (and grand total as well) this might save rerunning eligibility. at the minimum it would determine a value to use for the ACP %. it might be understated if some people were excluded from the ACP due to hours or last day.

As I understand it: 1 HCE, 3 NHCE, 1 of the NHCEs quits, more than 500 hours. That NHCE will not get a contribution due to last day rule. Plan A - 2 groups, owner and all others Plan B - each emp[loyee in its own group. in either case, only 2 of the 3 NHCEs benefit, which is 66.7% which fails ratio % test. In plan B, because each person is in its own group, the plan fails reasonable classification and can't rely on the avg ben test for coverage purposes. Plan A could rely on this test and might pass the avg ben % test if there are deferrals (and match) on an allocation basis, or even pass testing on an accrual basis. Testing on an accrual basis for the avg ben % test does not mean plan A is cross tested or needs to provided a gateway. at this point in time it's coverage that is being looked at, not nondiscrimination.

the more I think about it, the more I say ugh ugh and more ugh or I am simply not understanding your description. If I understand your description properly. the plan has always had a match, so that is not a new feature, so I agree you can't use 'first year of match so use 3% for prior year". the match that has been made has been a QMAC (or at least hope so, that the distribution restriction rules have also been applied otherwise there are other issues) [Just because a match is 100% vested does not make it a QMAC, the distribution rules also apply] I've never heard of match handled this way with prior year testing, but it would be possible. on Relius, you run the 2010 val. It stores the NHCE ACP % in plan specs. when you run the 2011 val it compares the 2011 HCE avg to the 2010 NHCE %. what would I expect to happen? If you had things coded to use the match in the ADP % last year, then I would expect nothing to show for the ACP % for 2010 for the NHCEs. You would have to rerun last year's test to get this value to store properly. By the way, this would be no different that if you decided you wanted to run testing as (comp - deferrals). you would have to recode plan specs and rerun last year's test.

more importantly, check the document, as I recall, some won't match deferrals that are returned. it was not mentioned if these were related matches which would have to be forfeited rather than distributed, though there is an option to run the ACP test first.

that's my understanding. see Part F Participants Death before RBD in the ERISA Outline Book of Section VII. in particular see the example 1c

that is my understanding of the rules. arguably, since gains associated with the match can be done under any reasonable method there would be no gains since the match hasn't been deposited. your question implies that the ADP has passed, and therefore 'unused' deferrals from the NHCEs can be 'shifted' to the ACP test. (on paper only) this would reduce (or eliminate) the amount of match returned.

based on 1.401(a)(9)-3 Q-1 if you die before the RBD what happens? A-1 if an employee dies before the employee's RBD (and thus, before distribution are treated as having begun in accordance with 401(a)(9)(A)(ii)... thus it appears it doesn't matter the fact the person actually took a distribution. that distribution is not treated as having "begun" mim distributions because it was taken before the RBD!!!! ERISA Outline book also agrees with this conclusion (unless the distribution was an annuity) the rest of the paragraph in the regs, in particularly Q-3 describes spousal beneficiary. I'd also take a look and see if the document has particular language. I believe one rule is you can wait until the spouse turns 70 1/2 unless the document has specified otherwise. thus it appears it doesn't matter the fact the person actually took a distribution. that distribution is not treated as having begun mim distributions. ERISA Outline book also agrees with this conclusion (unless the distribution was an annuity)

I think you end up with a D in the plan you previously reported him and a "C" under the current plan.

This report will give a listing of all plans on the system. this is not run out of Report Writer - rather you open the report in Crystal View/Print Preview This version will only print the most recent plan year of any given plan (not all plan years) the 'select' option is set to pull only DC plans (but you could change that if you want or have DB plans. the report is currently what I call a 'sample' of what you could pull - it currently shows NRA, top heavy status for next year and the vesting schedule (I think of the first account), but obviously could be modified to pull any particular item from plan specs you might want.

waiting period exclusive is really used for the situation such as ee hired on 1/2. now (yes or no) do you complete 12 months on 1/2 or 1/1? that would effect whether you enter 1/1 or 7/1. in census there is also a field 'met entry requirements' - obviously that has been set to something you don't want. my practice after the plan has been on the system 1 year is to set "calculate past year service" to "not computed". there is no reason to calculate past service once the plan has been on the system. that might not even change things in your case, but one never knows.

I would agree as well, but without knowing how the plan entry is coded or other facts I wouldn't know if it is a bug or a coding problem. we have so few plans processed more than once a year I wouldn't know for sure.

my apologies. here is the song list with numbers

ok, posted again. same old puzzles as before. but I never get tired of it. 130 songs to identify, with a list of 260 or so songs from which to pick. enter the song number (not the name) in the yellow box and the sheet should indicate if you are correct. Dang it, I still can only remember only about 85% of them, and I look at it every year. actually, I hold there are no wrong answers, just better answers than others. it was neat to pass this out to someone the other night and ask what about #27? the response "Its a knight saying shhhhh" and then the face light up and "Oh, the answer is ..........." "this is going to be fun!"

some food for thought. the instructions for 9a, Code B Use this code for a participant previously reported under the plan number shown on this form to modify some of the previously reported information. Enter all the current information for columns (b) through (g). You do not need to report a change in the value of a participant's account since that is likely to change. However, you may report such a change if you want. (I would add if you want to drive yourself crazy.) In other words, next year are you going to report a new account balance. and the following year. and the following year. so I'd go with the most recent info I have and not worry about it.

a few years ago someone posted the following, so you never know how the IRS will respond in regards to safe harbor contributions. a client who went into bankruptcy (which involved closing their doors, not a restructuring bankruptcy), the bankruptcy trustee suggested that the participants' safe harbor contributions be funded by forfeiting a portion of the owners' accounts (the owners agreed to this as well). They filed a 5310 with a copy of the court order that suggested the SH be funded as such. The IRS replied in less than 3 months and approved the method.

on the other hand (despite being nonsensical) I tripped across the following http://www.enrolledactuaries.org/ea2011/2011_Green_Book.pdf Participant Notification: Notification to Nonvested Terminated Participants ERISA 209(a), as amended by WRERA, requires, among other things, that participants, including terminated participants, receive a “report, in such manner and at such time as may be provided in regulations prescribed by the Secretary.” Further, such report “shall be in the same form, and contain the same information, as periodic benefit statements under section 105(a).” a) In absence of regulations, are reports under section 209(a) required for terminated participants who terminate without a vested benefit? b) If the answer to (a) is yes, would the statements need to provide an explanation of items such as “permitted disparity”? EBSA STAFF RESPONSE Section 209(a)(1)(B) of ERISA requires the furnishing of a benefit report upon an individual's termination of service with his or her employer. In the absence of regulations, EBSA staff believes that good faith compliance with the statute is required. In addition, section 209(a)(1) provides that a benefit report shall contain the same information as is required in an individual benefit statement under section 105(a) of ERISA. Neither section 105 nor 209 contains special rules for nonvested participants. Thus, in the absence of guidance under either ERISA 105 or 209 by the Department to the contrary, EBSA staff is of the view that plan administrators must furnish benefit reports to nonvested participants upon termination of service. In addition, furnishing of an individual benefit statement (or, in the context of this question, a benefit report under section 209 of ERISA) that does not include an explanation of permitted disparity, if applicable, would not be consistent with the principles of good faith compliance. For other guidance on information required under section 105, see the EBSA Field Assistance Bulletin 2006-03.

I don't believe the regs are specific on the issue, but everything I have ever read goes something like this since refunds are still considered to be an annual addition, it probably makes sense to include such amounts in testing. The person did indeed receive these as a contribution, and received them as a distribution as well.

this report is intended to pull the info for min distribution due by 12/31/2011 (or 4/1/2012) under report writer you would run the report from 1/1/2010 - 12/31/2010 and select All Plans. I ran it first thing in the morning before anyone else was on the system, took around 1/2 hour to pull the data from every plan. (A single report for each plan that has a possible min distrib) It doesn't do DB, though it will pull cash balance, but I doubt the amounts it pulls would be correct. That is a side effect. I have a few new takeovers, since its the first year on the system (2011) I ran the report on those plans from 1/1/2011 - 1/1/2011 just to pull the begin bal (which of course = the 12/31/2010) and that worked fine as well. as with any report it's a use at own risk, though I did compare the results to what Relius would pull. this report doesn't pull people with 0 balance like Relius, etc. but otherwise it did pull the same people, so it appears to be working. this report is actually a modifed version of the crystal report for 70 1/2, but it pulls more than the balance, it calculates the min distrib, so its sort of a combo between the crystal report and rthe standard report. what I don't like about the min distrib report from Relius (the standard report from Processing/Plan Maintence) is it will not necessaerily pull correct balances and I'm too lazy to go through each and every plan to run the following (per their instructions): The Set Trade Date Fields process (Processing/Balance Update/Set Trade Date Fields) is one way to update the beginning balance trade date fields in the Acctbal table. This process can only be run on a plan basis. It cannot be run for a single employee, or for more than one plan/plan year at a time. To figure out which plan year you would need to run this process for, to get correct balances for a particular plan/distribution year, see other FAQs under "70½..." topic. This report is hardcoded to take 12/31/2011 - DOB, so it is designed for 2011 only

I haven't seen anything specific, just some general discussion. The Department of Labor issued Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2009-02 (FAB 2009-02) providing guidance and transition relief on annual reporting requirements for 403(b) contracts issued prior to January 1, 2009. FAB 2009-02 provides that the plan administrator may exclude from Form 5500 reporting annuity contracts and custodial accounts for participants that meet the following: •The contract was issued prior to January 1, 2009 •The employer ceased to make or have an obligation to make contributions to the contract of a current or former employee before January 1, 2009 •All rights and benefits under the contract are legally enforceable against the custodian or insurer without involvement by the employer •The individual owner of the contract is fully vested in the contract or account Contracts that meet the above criteria may be excluded from reporting for participant count information as well as excluded from assets on the Form 5500. I guess if you were to exclude them from the 5500, then why report them on the SSA? My gut feeling being that if it made a difference of having the body count go above 100 and therefore would require a an audit, then people were taking the trouble to exclude these people. That being said, I know of no penalty for reporting someone you didn't have to report (e.g. someone who quit years and years ago), and the whole purpose of the form 8955-SSA was that these folks would be notified at age 65 if they had $ sitting about they might not know about. in other words, the govt would do the job of hunting down missing people, so to speak.

ah, this question, again.... (in other words..ethically? legally? will the DOL take the trouble to pursue the issue?...etc.) or maybe Is this done? YES Should it be done? that is open to debate. the question was raised at the 2000 annual ASPPA meeting, in the general Q&A session. The questions at this session were answered by Joe Canary, Scott Albert, Lou Campagna and Mabel Capolongo of the Department of Labor: Question 5: A 401(k) plan has 150 participants. The plan must file a full 5500 and have an audit by an accounting firm. Due to the cost of the audit ($10,000 or $15,000), my suggestion to the client is to split the plan into two plans, each with 75 participants. For 2000 there will be an audit. The plans could be split into two plans on December 31, 2000. Therefore, on January 1, 2001, both plans have less than 100 participants and no audit required. For tax qualification testing, they can be permissively aggregated. In fact, my plan is to administer as if it was one plan and just separate for 5500 purposes. Is my conclusion correct? Answer: This question raises issues of avoidance and evasion. It is not certain that you really have two plans for purposes of Title I of ERISA in this instance--even if there may be two plans for Internal Revenue Code purposes. In Advisory Opinion 84-35A, the Department stated it would consider, among others, the following factors in determining whether there is a single plan or several plans in existence: who established and maintains the plans, the process and purposes of plan formation, the rights and privileges of plan participants and the presence of any risk pooling, i.e., whether the assets of one plan are available to pay benefits to participants of the other plan. This Advisory Opinion also notes that the Internal Revenue Service has cited the existence or absence of risk pooling between funds as relevant to the determination of single plan status. See §1.414(1)-1(b) 26 C.F.R. §1.414(1)-1(b). In DOL Advisory Opinion 96-16A, the Department stated its position that whether there is a single plan or multiple plans is an inherently factual question on which the Department ordinarily will not opine in the Advisory Opinion process. for the rest of the discussion see http://benefitslink.com/boards/lofiversion...php/t46035.html

or if there were questions such as affiliated service, etc. I could see asking for help.

but that is ultimately the whole point of 'maybe'. 1 month before the end of the plan year you either 1. issue a notice saying no we won't go safe harbor this year (so no amendment takes place) a. include a new notice saying might go safe harbor next year or b. give up on safe harbor and do nothing more. or 2. issue a notice saying yes we ar safe harbor. a. amend plan for that year only and include notice saying might go safe harbor next year or b. amend plan tp be safe harbor until further notice, and issue notice saying plan will be safe harbor next year.

the comment we received from our document provider was The option for in-plan Roth rollovers is entirely optional. If the plan chooses not to permit in-plan Roth rollovers at this time, the plan can later be amended to provide for in-plan Roth Rollovers - generally by the end of the plan year in which the rollovers are first allowed. Note that safe harbor plans may not retroactively amend for in-plan Roth Rollovers after December 31, 2011 but may only amend prospectively for a future plan year (this is due to the annual/safe harbor notice requirements).

oooh. I forgot. It's Olive Oyl's measurements as well.

I guess Friday is suppose to be something special. oh yeh, it's payday.