Tom Poje

I must be on Dave's bad list. Doesn't surprise me a bit, but I don't get the options you have.

I don't get an option to attach new spreadsheets (or anything) I can only attach 'existing' items that I attached previously.

Dave is still working on attachment issue (I assume that means he has the same issue) and also a cosmetic issue - at least on my screen I can barely click on the field to send someone a message, but Dave says he gets the same garbled screen so I am not alone

I learned you can't do it at the moment - apparently. I might have ended up sending you the same sheet Mike sent, or a similar version anyway

sorry, I have meant to respond to this, but keep forgetting. Then I discovered I can't figure out how to attach a file. I can attach 'an existing item' - something that has been done previously, but nothing new. I'm having Dave look into it. (my old punch line with him might end up being "Bad job Walt, bad job", which refers to a story involving him that took place years ago)

under the definition s (1.401(m)-5 eligible employee (2) ...if an employee must perform additional service in order to ...receive an allocation of matching contributions for a plan year, the employee is not an eligible employee for the plan year so I would read this as saying anyone who doesn't have 3 years of service is not an eligible employee for 401(m)! now, while the max exclusion for deferrals is 1 year, you could, in effect have a 2 year wait for match, but then of course the match must be 100% vested as well. so you fails the max service wait and probably fail vesting (though you didn't mention what the schedule was so that is unclear)

the gateway minimum is made up of non-elective contributions - profit sharing, forfeitures, 3% safe harbor NONELECTIVE contributions (and if combined with a DB plan, the DB allocation). Matching contributions (safe harbor or otherwise are NOT considered to be nonelective contributions. (In fact, if it helps, when running coverage testing you have 3 tests 1. deferral 2 match and after tax 3. nonelective contributions. (and these are the only ones that can be used toward the gateway) though I should add, the current proposed regs would allow matching contributions to be applied to the gateway in certain situations in combo db/dc plans. There can not be an hours requirement/last day requirement to receive a safe harbor. If the plan has a safe harbor match, as mentioned above, it does not count toward the gateway because it is not a nonelective contribution. the only people needing to receive the gateway are people who received a gateway, so in you example, no gateway required for the individual. if the plan was a 3% SHNEC then the gateway would be required. However, if the safe harbor was a match, and the there was a non-elective to the owner you have to pass coverage. and if any NHCES had over 500 hours, they would be treated as included and not benefitting so you might have to give them a nonelective anyway.

I think in most cases it is up to you, at least in the case of Roth vs traditional deferral (of course maybe your document is hard coded otherwise) (The following is for ADP corrections, though I would think similar logic applies for excess deferrals) the FT William master document has (4) Refunds. If the Plan permits Roth Elective Deferrals, the Plan Administrator shall determine the ordering rule for refunds of Elective Deferrals made as a result of any testing failure; provided that such ordering rule is nondiscriminatory. Such ordering rule may provide that the Participant may elect to have refunds made either from his Pre-tax Elective Deferrals or Roth Elective Deferrals or any combination thereof. oh heck as long as it copied I will include: CCH INCORPORATED, DBA FTWILLIAM.COM 40 Copyright © 2002-2015 As for the calculation of gains attributable “ …the sum of allocable gain or loss for the plan year…”1.401(k)-(2)(b)(2)(iv)(A) Or the alternative method speaks of “…beginning of year …” as well 1.401(k)-(2)(b)(2)(iv)(C) There is no mention of “Calculate gain from date of deferrals last deposited”. “Any reasonable method may be used for calculating gains 1.401(k)-(2)(b)(2)(iv)(B) but since both A and C speak of plan year, or beginning of plan year I don’t see that as saying Last deferrals in first deferrals out.

it is a maybe for example, the ft William document (in addition to excluding HCEs entirely from safe harbor) has the following d. Allocation requirements for Highly Compensated Employees i. [ ] Require service for Highly Compensated Employees to receive a safe harbor contribution. Hours of Service required in the applicable Plan Year for Highly Compensated Employees to receive a safe harbor contribution: ii. [ ] Require employment on the last day of Plan Year for Highly Compensated Employees to receive a safe harbor contribution while it appears the line item for d(i) is intended to be # of hours, I wonder if one could enter 0 hours and contribution capped at 3% or something similar I really don't know, maybe that is a stretch

another of my long winded answers... I have never seen it written you 'make catch-up contributions' - and you even indicated the majority of the catch-up would be recharacterized to pass ADP test, which borders on a circular type argument. Though I guess some payroll companies classify deferrals as catch ups initially, and that really makes no sense. Anyway, just to make sure others understand the basics: catch-up contributions occur when one reaches a limit 1. deferral limit (currently 18,000) 2. plan imposed limit (for example, a plan could limit everyone or just HCEs to a certain % or $ amount. 3. 415 limit catch-ups could also result if a plan fails the ADP test, sort of an unplanned after effect ............. now, the original proposed regs indicated a plan could impose a 0% limit on key employees, and therefore all such people, if eligible, could only defer up to the catch up limit. this example, by the way was not in the final preamble, but that does not necessarily mean it is not valid. I have seen some argue if you have a cap of 0% then since the person can't defer they can't even make catch-ups. Personally I disagree, one could impose a 1 cent cap, and at that point, the amount is so small one still wouldn't generate a top heavy minimum unless the key person's comp is so low... so, without knowing more details, in your situation, if there is only one NHCE deferring a small amount the plan would probably fail ADP test and all but a small portion of the key employee would be treated as a catch up. the remainder, whatever % of pay, is the top heavy minimum. which is what you conclusion was. very good and observant! gold stars. The other option I have heard (if not in the document itself) a board of resolution indicating key employees are capped at 0%, and therefore the entire amount is indeed a catch up. of course this is supposed to have been in place beforehand..e.g. have it in place now for 2017 so you don't have a problem like this in the future..

agree. I have the book on CD Rom, which is close to 50 disks. never get tired of listening to it. it is the book plus the 'appendix' or whatever the additional material at the end of the book had and some comments based on an interview with Tolkien. I have seen parts of the movie, perhaps it gives an idea of the atmosphere, but what little I saw changed the characters enough to turn my stomach. (much less changing the Hobbit entirely so they could make it into 3 movie$$$$$$) I can't image going to a concert and listening to a Beethoven symphony and finding some of the movements were eliminated, some were changed to 'liven' things up, etc. but then you sound like one after my heart!

ah, quoting from one of my favorite books (not the movie) I guess you could have said "Go not to the actuary for counsel, for they will tell you "What do you want the answer to be"

if you only add it to the denominator, you are saying "There is no way a key employee will receive any of this" which, I am not sure you can say. probably better to exclude entirely, and treat it as a 'contribution' the company hasn't made yet (or, a profit sharing that will be allocated after 12/31, which generally is excluded anyway)

Belgareth - Eye Kant tipe werth eh durn -at least with the 12/30 date. my apologies on the dates. though in the case of 7/2 example it depends on whether you use inclusive or exclusive logic

if it is a calendar year plan, then you pretty much have to have and entry date of 1/1 BG5150 sort of said this but in a round about way. (I have one plan that has 12/31 as an entry date (or 1 day before 1/1, so the 1/1 rule never comes into play) so the general rule is 1/1 (if hired 7/2 or later - because someone hired 7/2 completes 1 year on 7/2 and enters 1/1 following, but someone hire 12/30 completes 1 year on 12/31 and also enters on 1/1) ) or 6 months after 1 YOS (if hired first half of the year) for max exclusion.

well, you don't really make a catch up It is too late after the end of the year (assuming calendar year plan 2016) however, if the person receives a large profit sharing contribution that would put him over the 415 limit, then some of the deferrals could be reclassified as a catch up. of course, if you ran the ADP test already you would have to run it over.

just to be clear - the deferrals don't count toward the 25% deductibility

hello, and welcome. (and my condolences) you are correct, lump sum means everything within one taxable year. I can't quite tell from your post because you only mentioned the beneficiary form, but does the document have something like the following which has different options for payout upon death, in this example item c was checked so that is what is followed - e.g. if B was checked then payout is lump sum. In this particular plan (though not shown below) distribution is by lump sum, but that is to the participant only, but as noted below, in the case of death while it could be lump sum, it allows for extended payments (this example is from a document that has a checklist, some are simply described in the distribution section under death. Payment upon Participant's Death Distributions on account of the death of the Participant shall be made in accordance with the following: a. [ ] Pay entire Account balance by end of fifth year for all Beneficiaries in accordance with Sections 7.02(b)(1)(A) and 7.02(b)(2)(A) only b. [ ] Pay entire Account balance no later than the 60th day following the end of Plan Year in which the Participant dies c. [ X ] Allow extended payments for all beneficiaries in accordance with Sections 7.02(b)(1)(A), (B) and (C) and 7.02(b)(2)(A) and (B) d. [ ] Pay entire Account balance by end of fifth year for Beneficiaries in accordance with Sections 7.02(b)(1)(A) and 7.02(b)(2)(A) and allow extended payments in accordance with Sections 7.02(b)(1)(B) and (C) and 7.02(b)(2)(B) only if the Participant's spouse is the Participant's sole primary Beneficiary e. [ ] Other:

may God bless your future endeavors. Thanks for all you have shared, hopefully any 'advice' I may have provided didn't set you back to far. As for my humble attempts at humor...well, it is too late for me to retract any of that.

this just popped up on MSN http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/trump-to-halt-obama-fiduciary-rule-order-review-of-dodd-frank/ar-AAmzOmM?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=iehp

well, I figured my 6000th post might as well be as bad as I can think of, so here goes... Our story concerns a retirement plan, and the union and all that nasty stuff that could go along when you get those folks involved. It involves one of the Fortune 500 Companies, the union approached management and insisted that they put in a plan everyone could be happy with – sort of like Obamacare, but dealing with retirement and not medical or something like that. This is after all a website dedicated to retirement. Just simply some plan that everyone would voluntarily sign up for, 100% of all employees because then the union would know it was great. Of course if but just one person dissented they would go on strike. So management sat down, worked out a great proposal and presented it to the union bosses. They looked it over, it looked fantastic. At retirement there would be annuities or installments or lump sums. There were even a variety of early lump sum window provisions. Along with a bunch of other great stuff. The document was clear, the SPD easily understood, wouldn’t cost the employees a cent. Initial sign was going great; this was so good looked like it was only going to take days to get everyone to sign up into the plan. Then, in stepped “Fred”. I won’t use the actual name simply to avoid offending anyone’s nationality. Perhaps being from ‘the old country’ he had gotten burned on similar ‘good deals’. But he refused to sign. And you’d think if only 1 out of over 100,000 employees didn’t sign that would be ok, but the union figured if they back down on this they would look weak, and who knows what else would happen. They tried hard – they sat down with Fred, went through the document, the SPD and other handouts, explaining everything to him. It simply was a good deal at no cost to him. Even fellow employees encouraged him to sign. Still he refused to sign. Finally, what must have been the 415th attempt at this they gave up. Even they had reached their limit. So despite not wanting to, it looked like there was a chance of a strike. Everyone was worried, no one wanted this. Finally the boss called Fred up to the office. Fred entered executive headquarters, walked past a fantastic fountain in the lobby. Popped into the elevator, the operator rode him up to the top floor. Fred walked out, past huge plate glass windows offering a fantastic and scenic view of the countryside. Down the hallway, thick lush carpeting. The secretary- couldn’t have been over 25, young, attractive, admitted Fred to the boss’s office and shut the door behind him, leaving him alone with the boss. On the table was the document, the SPD and everything else, including the last remaining unsigned signature card. The boss asked “Is there something you don’t understand about this?” and “Is there something wrong with it?, what can we possibly do to make it better?” And Fred responded, “I think I understand it clearly. Others have explained it to me, but I’m simply not going to sign” At this, the boss lost his temper. “Fred”, he began, “I didn’t get to be who I am today by letting people push me around. Now either you sign up or I am going to take you and throw you through the window. And then I am not going to be happy because I will have to have the window repaired, in addition to whatever lump of you remains below!” Fred walked over and looked out the window. He looked at the table with the material. He looked out the window again. Then he signed the card. As he was leaving, the boss asked him, “Now that wasn’t so bad. But why didn’t you sign before and we could have avoided all this.” And Fred responded “No one mentioned or described to me how the pension lump-sum window provision worked the way you did.”

I should have added "and therefore you need to enter years of service prior to running eligibility" but I do appreciate confirmation that is what happened, despite the fact it might be different software

if it is a pdf file there is no way for the IRS website what it contains so it should accept it. (or put another way, how the heck can the website know? if it was a word file it wouldn't take it because it is a wrong format, but other than that...) I thought any and all attachments are viewable. I think, for example they warn you don't attach SSA because soc sec numbers would be visible

with FT William, you could attach and select 'other attachment'. then you can name what the attachment is, does, etc.

as I indicated, I am not 100% sure. on the other hand, let's say the plan fails ADP test and there are deferral refunds. you then have to test BRF to make sure that the rate of match the HCEs receive is greater than the NHCE rate. I have never heard it indicated you have to look at all plans of a controlled group even if they were not aggregated for testing. it is only the participants in the actual plan being tested.