Tom Poje

current predictions have it hitting Jacksonville as a category 1. I don't live near the beaches and on the evacuation map I live in a white zone - there are 6 color zones plus white, basically, women and children first and as for you Tom, well, best of luck you are low on the totem pole. sometimes it pays to live where one does, maybe I'm not that close to the beach, but what the heck. I suspect may lose power, but cleaned up the stuff around the house, etc. Last storm knocked out power for less than a day, and most of that was at night so no big loss. we shall see what the 11:00 update says.

example 1 (see last sentence) is On June 30, 2007, Employer A uses the one-to-one correction method to correct the failure to satisfy the ADP test for 2005. Accordingly, Employer A calculates the dollar amount of the excess contributions for the two highly compensated employees in the manner described in § 401(k)(8)(B). The amount of the excess contribution for Employee P is $4,000 (4% of $100,000) and the amount of the excess contribution for Employee Q is $2,375 (2% of $118,750), or a total of $6,375. In accordance with § 401(k)(8)(C), $6,375, the excess contribution amount, is assigned $3,437.50 to Employee P and $2,937.50 to Employee Q. It is determined that the Earnings on the assigned amounts through June 30, 2007 are $687 and $587 for Employees P and Q, respectively. The assigned amounts and the Earnings are distributed to Employees P and Q. Therefore, Employee P receives $4,124.50 ($3,437.50 + $687) and Employee Q receives $3,524.50 ($2,937.50 + $587). In addition, on the same date, Employer A makes a corrective contribution to the § 401(k) plan equal to $7,649 (the sum of the $4,124.50 distributed to Employee P and the $3,524.50 distributed to Employee Q). The corrective contribution is allocated to the account balances of eligible nonhighly compensated employees for 2005, pro rata based on their compensation for 2005 (subject to § 415 for 2005). ........... sorry, I am in Jacksonville Florida and only taking a quick look at anything on the Links here. I've got some things I'm doing around house that concern me a little bit more than some of this.

just to be clear you don't have just 1 coverage and 1 nondiscrim test for the whole set up if you have a 401k plan you have 3 coverage / nondiscrim reports 1. 401k coverage ((anyone who could have met eligibility) and ADP for nondiscrim (ADP only includes those elig to defer) 2. 401m for coverage and ACP for nondiscrim - only include those who get a match for ACP 3. 401a(4) [profit sharing/forf] for coverage and nondiscrim ends up with all bodies if you use the otherwise excludable option then you could end up with 6 'tests'

I have 17 years on them, but I think I'd rather share my birthday with something else.

sorry Chippy, can't perform any songs until they let me out of the asylum.

they have enough problems and were only more than glad to escape their land however, they di say Oompa loompa doompety doo I've got a perfect puzzle for you Oompa loompa doompety dee If you are wise you'll listen to me What will you get with that safe harbor plan? you can’t combine just because of the ban What are you at, now you can’t aggregate What do you think will come of that I don't like the look of it Oompa loompa doompety da If you're not greedy, you will go far You will live in happiness too Like the Oompa Loompa Doompety do Doompety do

section 1.401(k)-1(b)(4)(iii)(B) last sentence Similarly, an employer may not aggregate a plan (within the meaning of section 1.410(b)-7(b) using the ADP safe harbor provision of section 401(k)(12) and another plan using the ADP test of section 401(k)(3). or if Willy Wonka rewrote the regs about trying to combineg a safe harbor with a non-safe harbor plan Wonka: [angrily] Wrong, sir! Wrong! Under section 37B of the contract signed by him, it states quite clearly that all offers shall become null and void if - and you can read it for yourself in this photostatic copy - "I, the undersigned, shall forfeit all rights, privileges, and licenses herein and herein contained," et cetera, et cetera... "Fax mentis, incendium gloria cultum," et cetera, et cetera... Memo bis punitor delicatum! It's all there! Black and white, clear as crystal! You have one safe harbor plan and another non-safe harbor plan., so you get... NOTHING combined!!! You lose! GOOD DAY, SIR! [returns to work]

I'll answer the same way as I did above EPCRS Appendix A .05 (2)(g) says (g) The methods for correcting the failures described in this section .05(2) do not apply until after the correction of other qualification failures. Thus, for example, if, in addition to the failure of excluding an eligible employee, the plan also failed the ADP or ACP test, the correction methods described in section .05(2)(b) through (f) cannot be used until after correction of the ADP or ACP test failures. For purposes of this section .05(2), in order to determine whether the plan passed the ADP or ACP test, the plan may rely on a test performed with respect to those eligible employees who were provided with the opportunity to make elective deferrals or after-tax employee contributions and receive an allocation of employer matching contributions, in accordance with the terms of the plan, and may disregard the employees who were improperly excluded. ............................... so does the term 'may' be it is optional, you can include the people and rerun the test? I don't think so - there is no mention anywhere of rerunning the tests. The problem with the English language is 'may' can be understood different ways. there are other times in the regs in which 'may' is not meant to be understood as optional, but rather 'normally you can't do this, but in this situation you are allowed (and in fact you must do this)' somewhere in the ERISA Outline book is a discussion on the useof 'may', not in regards to this issue but another. maybe it was related match, the regs say they may be forfeited. not that it is optional, but rather, even if it was 100% vested, it may be forfeited anyway to be in compliance with other rules.

EPCRS Appendix A .05 (2)(g) says (g) The methods for correcting the failures described in this section .05(2) do not apply until after the correction of other qualification failures. Thus, for example, if, in addition to the failure of excluding an eligible employee, the plan also failed the ADP or ACP test, the correction methods described in section .05(2)(b) through (f) cannot be used until after correction of the ADP or ACP test failures. For purposes of this section .05(2), in order to determine whether the plan passed the ADP or ACP test, the plan may rely on a test performed with respect to those eligible employees who were provided with the opportunity to make elective deferrals or after-tax employee contributions and receive an allocation of employer matching contributions, in accordance with the terms of the plan, and may disregard the employees who were improperly excluded. so does the term 'may' be it is optional, you can include the people and rerun the test? I don't think so - there is no mention anywhere of rerunning the tests. The problem with the English language is 'may' can be understood different ways. there are other times in the regs in which 'may' is not meant to be understood as optional, but rather 'normally you can't do this, but in this situation you are allowed (and in fact you must do this)' somewhere in the ERISA Outline book is a discussion on the term 'may' - not in regards to this issue but another one. maybe it was in the case of related match to an ADP failure. the regs say the related match may be forfeited. not to mean it is optional but you don't have to, but rather, even if the match was 100% forfeited you are permitted to forfeit it to be in compliance with other rules.

that is my understanding. if you pass 410b (for 401k) using otherwise excludable option, then you use otherwise excludable option for ADP testing as well. consistency rule. the one rule the IRS never really addressed, what if you use the special 'treat all HCEs as includable, even if one of them is normally otherwise excludable. they didn't change coverage to be the same as ADP testing in that scenario

the general rule is whatever you have done for coverage you must do for any type on nondiscrim testing

that would be my understanding, plan A passes so no disqualifying event. you have permissive aggregation, not required, if I understand things correctly

10 years younger than Jack Benny could of sworn they were the same age. Thanks Dave for all you do!

matching contributions can not be used to satisfy integrated portion, so not sure what you mean by your second bullet point. I've never tried running both a SHNEC and integration on Relius. since you can't use the SHNEC to satisfy integration either, are you able to run the integrated formula first, and the run the safe harbor contribution? e.g. they are putting 50,000 toward the integration portion plus the 3% safe harbor?

My chameleon suddenly was unable to change colors. I took him to the vet and he diagnosed it as a reptile dysfunction.

as noted above, it would seem odd that a discretionary match would be considered late (in your case, "two weeks late") while a required safe harbor match has until the end of the following quarter. or put another way, how come the IRS did not require safe harbor match to be put in the same time as the deferrals.

I think the "DEM"s have taken over the post

Mike- in something you asked me many moons ago, the CPI-W index (which is used to calc soc sec increases) there is the following blurb: Notes: Beginning with the CPI for January 2007, BLS publishes monthly CPIs to 3 decimal places. For years before 2007, BLS published CPIs to one decimal place. We show 3 decimal places for every year to provide a consistent presentation. The data for 2000 include revisions released by BLS on September 28, 2000. Data for May through August 2016 include revisions released by BLS on October 18, 2016 when they say to be consistent they show things to 3 places prior to 2007, all they have done is add 2 zeros.

generally no, unless I am missing something in your question. for example, if you had a last day rule or hours requirement for match those folks who fail do not show on the ACP even though they are included in the ADP test.

RatherbeGolfing- but if you aren't using Relius, my report would do you no good. .................. the whole point of my comment (if it was missed), in addition to assignment roles related to plans, there are a lot of little 'extra' one can do that help make things flow. and use people's strengths. They don't ask me to talk to clients because they know its not my strength. but compliance questions, or importing particular data I can save everyone time.

and then there are misfits like me... one of the in-house reports I created includes a random message from the cow that everyone looks for whatever reason. by the way, this is a modified Relius SOA report to make it easier to fill out the 5500. (of course if there are adjustments - such as ADP refunds) the numbers have to be moved, but the purpose was so just about anyone can in the office could use it)we work in different locations, so I don't get to see the folks so I think stuff like this helps. but then I also take the trouble (at my own expense) to send out 'gifts' e.g. they all get an annual gift box from Baraboo just because it is neat to get some cow pies. it started as a one time joke, but never stopped. at one time everyone worked in the same office so I used to give out homemade Christmas cookies and breads, but I know I'm lucky to work with some fantastic people.

Relius will of course run a plan that large, though perhaps slower than a plan with fewer folks. I understood the question to be : we ran the test on a spreadsheet we know the ADP for both HCE and NHCE Plan fails, we want the refund numbers. so at this point, to reiterate, lets say you only have, say, 50 HCEs amongst the 4000 I would load the HCEs only up on Relius and run the test. (it doesn't matter if it is current or prior year testing, just plug the avg NHCE rate into prior year test field) ........... I had read the post yesterday and wondered about such a spreadsheet. then it dawned on me to approach it from a different point of you. sort of reminds me the 'story' the Americans spent millions to come up with a pen that would write in outer space. The Russians decided to use a pencil.

while I have created a number of different worksheets, I never created one for that purpose. I think I would do the following. Create a dummy plan, load only the HCEs and in prior year ADP/ACP plug the average values of the NHCEs. Then run the test. Doesn't really matter what you code for plan specs, as long as all the HCEs show up. If, for example, it is the company plan, names aren't even important. in fact, even dates of birth, etc. aren't important. all you want are the HCE bodies with comp and deferral (and match if needed) it beats reinventing the wheel.

Once upon a midnight dreary While I pondered weak and weary Would I get the plans, to go out the door? Quote the Raven “Nevermore” While I nodded nearly napping Suddenly there cane a tapping As of someone gently rapping Rapping at my chamber door It’s the IRS, whom I abhor. (they want more, ever more) I slave all day, it’s such a pain All these regs, oh my poor brain. A raise I deserve, and much, much more Quote the Raven “Nothing more” Because of pensions, I have no life No kids, no fun, nor even wife. Are these plans the reason, I have nothing more? Quote the Raven, “No, You are a bore” The pension laws, change every few years Brings most of us, to the point of tears Who made the changes, so we could put away more? Quote the Raven “It wasn’t Gore” The pay is bad, the hours long I often wonder, if I belong I have no money, I’m always poor Quote the Raven “Forevermore” I do my job, I do it well But all this work, is hell, hell, hell. The boss is shouting, at my chamber door Back to work, Do this, do that and much, much more.