Tom Poje

CuseFan - but be careful while restructuring may be possible, it still requires everyone getting the gateway testing everyone on an allocations basis has no such requirement

I don't think there is any limit. (the old Pentabs system had a limit based on number of participants and accounts, because I broke that on purpose one time just to find what it was) one of the largest we have (if not the largest) has over 11,000 bodies start eligibility, go see a movie and maybe by the time you get back... just kidding, but that one does process awhile. hopefully you can customize reports if you need to look for something quickly.

of course the govt can always run things cheaper! The Treasury Department said Friday that it will end an Obama-era program called myRA that created accounts aimed to help Americans start saving for retirement. After about three years, just 30,000 people had opened a myRA, and of those only 20,000 people had saved money in the account, the Treasury Department said. The program has cost taxpayers $70 million so far, according to Treasury, and was expected to cost $10 million annually going forward. "Unfortunately, there has been very little demand for the program, and the cost to taxpayers cannot be justified by the assets in the program," said U.S. Treasurer Jovita Carranza in a statement. In total, myRA account holders have saved $34 million to date.

by the way, the IRS example is (but even that might not convince someone) https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/retirement-plans-faqs-regarding-loans 6. Jim, a participant in our retirement plan, has requested a second plan loan. Jim’s vested account balance is $80,000. He borrowed $27,000 eight months ago and still owes $18,000 on that loan. How much can he borrow as a second loan? Would it benefit him to repay the first loan before requesting a second loan? Jim will only be able to take a second loan if your plan’s terms allow it. You’ll find how to determine the maximum amount Jim may borrow in IRC Section 72(p)(2)(A). The law treats the portion of the loan that exceeds the maximum amount as a distribution. Generally, any previously untaxed amount of the distribution is taxable. We’ll use the facts in your question to calculate Jim’s maximum allowable loan balance. The new loan plus the outstanding balance of all other loans cannot exceed the lesser of: $50,000, reduced by the excess of the highest outstanding balance of all Jim’s loans during the 12-month period ending on the day before the new loan (in this example, $27,000) over the outstanding balance of Jim’s loans from the plan on the date of the new loan (in this example, $18,000), or The greater of $10,000 or 1/2 of Jim’s vested account balance. Maximum second loan if amount still owed on first loan Jim’s current loan balance is $18,000. This amount plus the new loan cannot exceed the lesser of: $50,000 – ($27,000 - $18,000) = $41,000, or $80,000 x 1/2 = $40,000 Jim’s total permissible balance is $40,000, of which $18,000 is an existing loan balance. This leaves a new maximum permissible loan amount of $22,000 ($40,000 - $18,000). Maximum second loan if first loan repaid Because the law bases Jim’s maximum loan on all of his loans during the 12 months prior to the new loan, there isn’t a significant advantage for Jim to pay off his first loan before requesting a second. If Jim repaid the $18,000 before applying for the second loan, he would be limited to the lesser of: $50,000 – ($27,000 – 0) = $23,000, or $80,000 x 1/2 = $40,000 In this case, the maximum permissible loan amount would be $23,000.

This depends on how the document is written. I have an age weighted plan which is written to use the same factor once retirement age is reached (thus 2 people making the same comp (one at NRA and another older than NRA)) will receive the same contribution. otherwise the older individual would receive a smaller contribution. I don't remember exactly how I did it, but I created a mortality table the software uses and it works, though of course if there were few people past NRA I could have simply hand calculated the value and overridden things after running eligibility on those people. (running eligibility determined the points for each participant) The example I used in the Coverage and Nondiscrimination Answer Book (page 11-22) is as follows: (Warning: I am a nut case and into the different ramifications that can happen in situations like this) Example 11-9. Two employees, one age 65 (Employee 1) and one age 70 (Employee 2), each earn $100,000 per year. Normal retirement age is 65. The plan uses the UP 1984 mortality table, the preretirement interest rate is 8.5 percent, and the postretirement interest rate is 8.5 percent. Contributions for the year total $50,000. If the plan used APR at actual age if one works past normal retirement (assuming an APR of 84.0341 at age 70), the result would be as follows: Employee 1: $100,000×95.3828×.01=95,382.80 (53.16 percent of total) Employee 2: $100,000×84.0341×.01=84,034.10 (46.84 percent of total) Total Points179,416.90 Employee 1 will receive $26,581.33 ((95,382.80÷179,416.90)×$50,000) Employee 2 will receive $23,418.67 ((84,034.10÷179,416.90)×$50,000) The end result would seem to be discriminatory toward an individual who works past normal retirement age. To get around the problem of discrimination, most plans are written to use the APR at normal retirement age when determining the number of points. Since both employees make the same amount of money, using the same APR would result in the same contribution for both employees—in Example 11-9, $25,000 a piece. But what happens when you perform nondiscrimination testing (in which case the APR used is for the actual age of an individual who works past normal retirement age)? [Treas. Reg. § 1.401(a)(4)-12, definition of testing age] A review of the E-Bars would result in the following expression: Contribution×(1.085)Years to Retirement÷APR×12÷Compensation Note. Neither employee has any years left to retirement. Employee 1: $25,000×(1.0850)÷95.3828×12÷$100,000=3.145 Employee 2: $25,000×(1.0850)÷84.0341×12÷$100,000=3.570 This would seem to raise the possibility of failing nondiscrimination testing. However, a plan will not fail discrimination testing merely because allocations are made at the same rate for employees who are older than their testing age (determined without regard to the current age rule in paragraph (4) of the definition of testing age in Treas. Reg. § 1.401(a)(4)-12) as they are made for employees who are at their testing age. [Treas. Reg. § 1.401(a)(4)-8(b)(1)(ii)]

wristbands yes, multiple beer stands so that wasn't a problem. gave the season tickets to 'younger' co workers they said the beer lines were long, the restroom lines were longer.

though I was a season ticket holder (until they changed their name to the Jumbo-Shrimp) I did not make the Harding game. probably a Sat night game and I was in church choir those nights. beer night was always Buds for a buck, or something similarly named. I think someone copyrighted that so they had to change to Thirsty Thursday- never went on Thursday Night either. My brother said for the games in San Jose the promotion was 'beer guy'. if the selected batter struck our beers were half off. I guess the selected batter had little chance if he had 2 strikes, the whole crowd was chanting "beer Guy" against him. ............ in one episode of the cartoon Futurama there was a sequence of a little girl in tap dancing contest with the robot Bender. in one scene, so she would have a better chance at winning she smashes his knee. I'm laughing my head and my brother asked what was so funny, and I said because her name was Tanya. Thought that was great how they worked that into the story.

sad to say, I guess it shows my age, since it was 38 years ago, probably most on this website can not even appreciate (if that is a good term) Disco Demolition Night. I imagine most never owned a record (and so missed out on those large glorious record covers). Reading some of the comments about the event on the internet, it was promoted by a disk jockey who had just lost his job at another station that went 'all disco' format. you could get a ticket to the game for 98 cents if you brought a record to be destroyed. they expected about 5000 additional fans. so many people showed up they stopped collecting records because the bins were full. estimated crowd was over 50,000 (largest in White Sox history), with many more outside the stadium, who eventual jumped the turnstiles anyway. [I guess in that sense of the word, a 'successful' promotion in regards to the forfeit: American League president Lee MacPhail, who postponed the second game to Sunday after hearing a report on conditions. Anderson, however, demanded that the game be forfeited to the Tigers. He argued that under baseball's rules, a game can only be postponed due to an act of God, and that, as the home team, the White Sox were responsible for field conditions. The next day, MacPhail forfeited the second game to the Tigers 9–0. In a ruling that largely upheld Anderson's arguments, MacPhail stated that the White Sox had failed to provide acceptable playing conditions Mike Veeck has since become an owner of minor league baseball teams. In July 2014 the Charleston RiverDogs, of whom Veeck is president, held a promotion involving the destruction of Justin Bieber and Miley Cyrus merchandise

a little over 38 years ago 7/12/1979 the crowd 'celebrates' but not from a pennant win, or all star game but rather disco demolition night in Chicago. a promotion gone really bad. between games they blew up records, the crowd stormed the field and Detroit wins the second game due to a forfeit. Sparky Anderson had become manager mid season that year, only 1 month before this game.

imagine Fred, planning on quitting in Sept. he knows he has enough hours to receive a benefit under the current terms of the plan if he quits. he is simply waiting to tie up a few loose ends, and get the mid year bonus the company pays. Is his benefit protected or can the company simply change the formula because he 'might' terminate but hasn't? taking it one step further, Fred gives his 2 weeks notice. so company now amends the plan to put everyone into groups and of course Fred's group will get nothing. that smells.

BG5150 -agreed that can happen, which is why people go accrued to date method my comment was simply meant to imply that one is not locked into a particular method that was done in the past. but you raise a valid point that it could save some on the overall contribution.

1. I think in all the years I attended ASPPA Conferences the accrued to date method for DC plans was available once maybe twice. I have a copy of notes from 1998 Conference [Annual vs Accrued to date] Also have a copy of notes in which the examples are as of 1995 which I obtained from somewhere. but I don't recall the topic discussed at any of the conferences I attended, so I'm not sure I would say "you didn't attend the right sessions" is quite accurate, though I have gone in recent years. but I have seen the list of topics discussed and I don't remember that being on the list. (unless it was only briefly mentioned as part of the general discussion) 2. correct, Relius does not perform accrued to date on DC plans. of course, even if it did, it could only test on years you have on the system.You say the prior TPA ran the test that way, it implies you have a takeover case, so without historical data on the system you would be limited running accrued to date even if the system did that. (as I recall you could pick any year as a starting point), or as the notes I have say "you request the 12/31/1998 balances and years of participation for all employees" -which shows how old the notes are! Just because accrued to date was used previously does not mean you have to continue to test that way.

for example, the summary of plan description might read something like this (In this example Christmas bonus was excluded, I would expect your summary to indicate overtime is excluded. Adjustments to compensation. The following adjustments to compensation will be made for purposes of salary deferrals:   compensation paid prior to your becoming a Participant will be excluded   Christmas bonuses are excluded

Tripped across this. I'm a bit fascinated by stats. Miguel Cabrera had hit 2598 last night and I was looking up to see where that was on the all time list. with 2605 was someone name Rabbit Maranville. well, with a name like that I had to look it up. played in the 10's and 20's. Played the most number of seasons as anyone until Pete Rose. but the story about him... Maranville appeared in all 156 games during the miracle season of 1914, driving in 78 runs out of the cleanup spot even though he batted only .246. He came up with many big hits during the Braves' pennant drive, but none was more important than the game-winning home run he belted in the tenth inning on August 6--even though he was suffering from a severe hangover from drinking too much champagne at a dinner party the night before. "In the clubhouse while I was undressing Stallings came over to me and said, 'You go back to choking up; you are no home-run hitter,'" Rabbit remembered. "Truthfully, I never did see the ball I hit, and years later Babe Adams, who was the pitcher that day, asked me if it was a curve or a fastball I hit over the fence. I told him I never saw it and he said, 'I know darn well you never did.'"

but Belgareth, you probably want the document to correspond to Facebook's options just to cover any possibility: Agender Androgyne Androgynous Bigender Cis Cisgender Cis Female Cis Male Cis Man Cis Woman Cisgender Female Cisgender Male Cisgender Man Cisgender Woman Female to Male FTM Gender Fluid Gender Nonconforming Gender Questioning Gender Variant Genderqueer Intersex Male to Female MTF Neither Neutrois Non-binary Other Pangender Trans Trans* Trans Female Trans* Female Trans Male Trans* Male Trans Man Trans* Man Trans Person Trans* Person Trans Woman Trans* Woman Transfeminine Transgender Transgender Female Transgender Male Transgender Man Transgender Person Transgender Woman Transmasculine Transsexual Transsexual Female Transsexual Male Transsexual Man Transsexual Person Transsexual Woman Two-Spirit

Turns out it was really from the Monkees

Belgareth - never had crow pie - I'd rather have a cow pie (at least from Baraboo). and especially if it is dark chocolate!

I can't remember things like that but ERISA Outline Book has Chapter 11 Part C 1.h 1.h.2004 regulations disregard disproportionate matching contributions allocated to NHCs… 1.h.9)QMACs. Remember that all matching contributions are taken into account to determine the matching rate described above, even if any portion of those matching contributions are QMACs (see 1.a.2) above then in the supplement I have (where it came from I have no idea) - though deleting a post about eating crow doesn't get Belgareth off the hook Summer Crow Kabobs submitted by Gordon Krause (Crow Busters Founder) Ingredients 16 pieces of crow breast meat (no bones) (8 crows) 16 pieces of green pepper 16 cherry tomatoes 8 button mushrooms 8 ears of sweet corn 1 1/2 cups of Teriyaki sauce 1/2 cup melted butter 8 kabob skewers Preparation Cut each piece of crow in half and place in a covered bowl with the Teriyaki sauce over night. Clean and cut each ear of corn into 3 pieces. Cook in boiling salt water for 10 minutes. Alternately put corn (3 pieces), green peppers (3 pieces) and cherry tomatoes (3) along with 4 pieces of crow meat on each skewer. Use 1 mushroom to top each skewer. Brush with melted butter and place on preheated grill for about 4 minutes. Flip, butter again and place back on grill for another 4 minutes. Repeat one last time for a total of 12 minutes or until they appear done. Serves four adults.

(iii) Distributions and Forfeitures of the Excess Contribution Amount. (A) The portion of the excess contribution amount assigned to a particular highly compensated employee under paragraph (1)(b)(ii) is adjusted for Earnings from the end of the plan year of the year of the failure through the date of correction. Hadn't thought about it before, but I guess that means it is the only time you use GAP period income the example from EPCRS is Example 1: Employer A maintains a profit-sharing plan with a cash or deferred arrangement that is intended to satisfy § 401(k) using the current year testing method. The plan does not provide for matching contributions or after-tax employee contributions. In 2007, it was discovered that the ADP test for 2005 was not performed correctly. When the ADP test was performed correctly, the test was not satisfied for 2005. For 2005, the ADP for highly compensated employees was 9% and the ADP for nonhighly compensated employees was 4%. Accordingly, the ADP for highly compensated employees exceeded the ADP for nonhighly compensated employees by more than two percentage points (in violation of § 401(k)(3)). There were two highly compensated employees eligible under the § 401(k) plan during 2005, Employee P and Employee Q. Employee P made elective deferrals of $10,000, which is equal to 10% of Employee P's compensation of $100,000 for 2005. Employee Q made elective deferrals of $9,500, which is equal to 8% of Employee Q's compensation of $118,750 for 2005. Correction: 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). the complete handy dandy EPCRS is attached epcrs 2016.pdf

If the following article is any guideline I suspect they might treat profit sharing plan similar to soc security - as a type of 'insurance' (and as part of their beliefs, they take care of their own so they don't need or want that) I get a kick out of the following line in the article about the Amish and soc sec "Byler explained that his religion forbid paying insurance. When he was told that this was a mere technicality and that it was indeed a tax, he apparently replied, "Doesn’t the title say Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance?" http://www.amishnews.com/amisharticles/amishss.htm

perhaps there is what I call the very strange. emphasis mine. I leave the interpretation up to you! 1.401(k)-2(b)(2)(v) (v) Distribution. Within 12 months after the close of the plan year in which the excess contribution arose, the plan must distribute to each HCE the excess contributions apportioned to such HCE under paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section and the allocable income. Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph (b)(2)(v) and paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this section, a distribution of excess contributions must be in addition to any other distributions made during the year and must be designated as a corrective distribution by the employer. In the event of a complete termination of the plan during the plan year in which an excess contribution arose, the corrective distribution must be made as soon as administratively feasible after the date of termination of the plan, but in no event later than 12 months after the date of termination. If the entire account balance of an HCE is distributed prior to when the plan makes a distribution of excess contributions in accordance with this paragraph (b)(2), the distribution is deemed to have been a corrective distribution of excess contributions (and income) to the extent that a corrective distribution would otherwise have been required.

like a lot of these things, you have to look hard enough to find what you want. what a bother. EPCRS Appendix B Section 2 (b) One to One Correction method .... (iv) Contribution and Allocation of Equivalent Amount. (A) The Plan Sponsor makes a contribution to the plan that is equal to the aggregate amounts distributed and forfeited under paragraph (1)(b)(iii)(A) (that is, the excess contribution amount adjusted for Earnings, as provided in paragraph (1)(b)(iii)(A), which does not include any matching contributions forfeited in accordance with § 411(a)(3)(G) as provided in paragraph (1)(b)(iii)(B)). The contribution must be a QNEC as defined in § 1.401(k)-6.

and there is no reason it can not be paid before 12/31/2017. the 4/1 date is simply the latest date. so when the distribution is actually taken will be taxed in either 2017 or 2018

tough question, without knowing how many you plan to file, cost, etc. and if you have a TCC number that might make a difference as well. I think most softwares you don't have to have one, but some may give you the option of filing under theirs or yours, with a difference in price. .................. We use FT William (with their 5500 software) but I don't think that makes a difference if you don't use the 5500 feature. I find it real easy to use, one nice feature is by typing in the company EIN the software pulls the basic information on the plan and populates much of the info on the first page. If you have lots of SSA for a particular plan they have a fairly easy to use excel import file as well. but then I'm speaking having used the system for a number of years.

Plan specs/ compliance / ADP-ACP / History you will probably need to click the '+' icon to add a prior year