Tom Poje

if plan allowed for after tax and there was no eligibility for after tax since after tax is included in the 401m test since you can print a report showing who is included in the testing, and you know who wasn't eligible for match you should be able to track that down 'easily'

there is one and only one average benefits percentage test which includes all contribution of any type. use the least restrictive eligibility requirements - this would be no different than if you were testing a controlled group (though you could split the test into statutory includable and otherwise excludables. there are 3 410(b) tests, so when someone asks whether they should be excluded from 410(b) testing the question doesn't make sense. which particular 410(b) test do they mean. 401(k) (deferral) 401(m) match ) nonelective (employer and QNEC) the ratio test for these based on eligibility requirements for the particular feature, but regardless, there is still only 1 avg ben pct test based on everything.

I certainly wish all a Merry Christmas, may God bless all. or Happy Hanukkah if that is your faith. my apologies if those 2 statements leaves someone off the list. in case you have lost the Christmas Song puzzle, here it is. you probably have to enable editing to enter items in the puzzle, I don't recall. enter a number in the 'yellow' field, the number is from the song list on the second tab. ........................................................ note: I attached a slightly different version of the excel sheet. the only difference is at the bottom of the song list. (I had that on my original excel file but attached the wrong version earlier. The Long Version of the SSQQ Christmas Puzzle is the Original Work of Rick Archer. I share it as my gift during each Holiday Season. Everyone is welcome to reproduce my puzzle for their own private use to entertain students, friends, and visitors as long as you do not charge money. It is meant to be a non-commercial form of entertainment in the original spirit of Christmas Giving. No one may reproduce any part of the Long Puzzle on the Internet or for any form of commercial use without the written permission of Rick Archer. If anyone sees any part of my puzzle reproduced elsewhere, please let me know. Thank you for respecting my wishes. Rick Archer the link to his sit should be on the excel sheet. there are now 150 puzzles available, but he has replaced a number of the pictures and personally I'm not as happy with tehm, but then that is me. christmas puzzles- 130 to solve .xls

I don't think the RMD date changes, but how things are handled.. (I can only assume you must have a 65/5 or something and you are talking about a situation where the person is 0% vested). if it was a DC plan, then 1.401(a)(9)-4 Q 8 kicks in...if the total amount of the vested benefit is less than the required amount only the vested portion if any is required to be distributed...however the required distribution in future years must be increased by the sum of the amounts not distributed in prior years. in other words, if the person is 0% vested the first year, yes he is due a distribution but you can't pay anything because if he quit at 0% he couldn't get anything. how that works in the DB world I don't know, but I guess if you are allowed to treat a Cash Balance similar to a DC plan, then you keep a running total of what is due.

somehow a thread under that particular forum took a side turn to "if an infinite number of monkeys were sat at an infinite number of typewriters" and whether or not all the works of Shakespeare and other such things would be produced.as far as I know this was actually tested in theory once (and only once because the results were horrific) after many days the only thing that was produced was The Internal Revenue Code. May they never try that experiment again.

ah, not quite the same as what I heard A Englishman, a Scotsman, and an Irishman walk into a pub. They proceed to each buy a pint of Guinness.Just as they were about to enjoy their creamy beverage three flies landed in each of their pints, and were stuck in the thick head. The Englishman pushed his beer away from him in disgust. The Scotsman fished the offending fly out of his beer and continued drinking it as if nothing had happened. The Irishman too, picked the fly out of his drink, held it out over the beer and then started yelling, "SPIT IT OUT, SPIT IT OUT YOU #$%&*@!!!"

My sentiments exactly. Hopefully the update will not require logging on again, it has been since forever and I couldn't even tell you what my password is!

well, I would think it has to apply. so you look at each plan separately under its own terms, or at least that is how I think it operates.

well, for coverage purposes there is the transition rule under IRC 410(b)(6) that basically says you can ignore aggregating things for 2016 and 2017 (assuming there is nothing really strange going on with the acquisition) I think one of the reasons for that rule is the situation you describe, to give you some time to modify things.

actually that simply popped into the brain, a variation of the old Christmas joke I haven't thought of for years: It was around Christmas time, and as a test who would qualify to play Santa, the store's policy was to give a simple quiz: just to make sure such candidate had something 'upstairs' so they asked the guy How many days of the week start with the letter T? After deliberation he replied "Today and Tomorrow" taken a little bit by surprise, they asked the following: Math quiz: How may seconds are there in a year? (and don't worry about it being a leap year) the man scribbled some calculations on paper and after a bit of time responded "12" of course they were a bit shocked until he continued "The second of January, the second of February...." Finally a bit worried about how all this was going, and the guy seemed like a nice individual they asked "OK, listen carefully How many Ds are there in RuDolph the reD noseD reinDeer? they repeated this again, especially emphasizing the letter D when pronouncing the words the man sat and they could see him counting on his fingers, then he would shake his head and mumble "start over" and after about 5 minutes he finally said "I think 112" Their jaws dropped, and he could see this was probably not the right answer, so he said "Let me try again (to the tune of the song of course) Dee Dee Dee Dee Dee Dee Dee.......

If you are tracking different investments, etc I think I would create a new plan but copy employees from the old plan as well as the specs

the only exception is ADP testing (not coverage) in which he can be included with all other ees > 1 year of service for coverage profit sharing it is optional to include or exclude terminees < 500 hours (assuming they did not benefit), but you have to treat all terminees that way if you use that option.

so that means it includes yesterday, today but not tomorrow?

and the other half are liars?

of course the Detroit Lions are in that club. The claim is that Matt Stafford was injured this week during the game so was wearing a white glove during the rest of the game, though since he insists on pulling things out at the end of the game the white glove is more reminiscent of Michael Jackson and "Thriller". and even the Beatles are joining in with "No. 9"

well, if that incredible salesman would make enough to be an HCE (even though it wouldn't take place for a year) it smells of favoring an HCE, which of course would be discriminatory. probably isn't the intent of the regs to have something like that take place.

It is a facts and circumstances 30 days and the IRS blesses things and says the participants have a chance to make an informed decision. at this point it is more than 15 days I'd say that is probably enough time, but other factors (e.g. number of participants involved) might make a difference. If someone was taking a months vacation beginning tomorrow, well, of course, not much time there.

the difference being (or at least the option offered the participant)- take the first distribution in 2016, and pay the taxes now, and then take the next one in 2017 otherwise, it is no taxes in 2016 but tow distributions taxed in 2017. might make a big difference.

I am confused, you speak of April 2017 which implies a first distribution date but then say the second has to be taken by 12/31/2016, which would be before April 2017! so, assuming 12/31/2016 is the 2nd distribution dating... working backwards, the first distribution was due by 12/31/2015 (but was delayed until 4/1/2016). so the way I think of it first distribution uses 12/31/2014 balance and is dues 4/1/2015 (but you are allowed to delay it until 4/1/2016) the second distribution uses the 12/31/2015 balance (adjusted for the distribution made after 12/31/2015), but you don't use the same end balance twice. 1.I still have a sense of humor 2 it may be very dry. but I still have one 3. conclusion: I am not an actuary so won't attempt to answer the DB portion, except to say if the person is still accruing a benefit you need to adjust the amount every year as far as I know.

first, remember, I am a Grinch, so such a plan design sounds like something I could dream about you might want to check what the IRS said just a few months ago. https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/discriminatory-plan-designs-using-short-service this is just the last portion of the comments. Almost word for word the situation you are describing! Plans may discriminate even though they allocate a larger percentage of compensation to NHCEs. With this design, NHCEs, on average, may seem to receive a misleadingly large accrual or allocation level. For example, an NHCE participant with $200 of annual compensation may receive a profit sharing allocation of $200 (a benefit equal to 100% of compensation), while an HCE with compensation of $200,000 may receive a benefit of only 25% of compensation or $50,000. Although these designs may allow the plan to satisfy the vesting or numeric general tests for nondiscrimination and the associated regulations, they don’t satisfy Treas. Reg. Section 1.401(a)(4)-1©(2), which requires that the provisions of Sections 1.401(a)(4)-1 through 1.401(a)(4)-13 be reasonably interpreted to prevent discrimination in favor of HCEs. Page Last Reviewed or Updated: 01-Apr-2016 as the IRS says, yes, through the formulas and everything else giving a low paid NHCE 100% of comp 'works' it violates a reasonable interpretation to prevent HCEs from favored treatment. I think the killer is your opening statement "I am designing a new..."

I'm not even sure many people have used this feature, but possibly under processing/global income update/activity import and one of the choices is 'fees' I've never used that option before, but I have used the gains import to magically create gains transaction for whomever I had in the excel and had a gains value. the excel file can not be 'open' when you use this feature, otherwise it doesn't work, at least for gains it doesn't.

without researching, I assume probably more of a word for British usage. sort of like 'homely', which has an entirely different meaning here than it does there. best example I can think of is from Lord of the Rings (the book, no idea if it is used in the movie), the house of Elron is known as the last homely house, and that is meant to be a admirable quality. I recall listening to the radio one time - someone from Britain and he said he was visiting here, and his friends wife had served a marvelous dinner and he made the comment "Your wife is quite homely", which was, of course , misunderstood, based on the looks he said he received.

Bah. have you forgotten how bigly my heart grew one day? (Thankfully it shrunk back to its normal size and I could get back to being the Grinch. Narrator: And what happened, then? Well, in Whoville they say-that the Grinch's small heart grew three sizes that day.

unless of course you are playing scrabble and need it to help your cause! ....................... yes, “bigly” is in fact a real word, according to the Oxford English Dictionary at least. The dictionary classifies the word as an adverb, meaning “with great force” or “loudly, boastfully

1.401(k)-3(d)(3)(i) ...the determination of whether a notice satisfies the timing requirements is based on the relevant facts and circumstances (ii) the timing requirement is deemed satisfied if at least 30 days before the beginning of the year the notice is given... .............. so the regs say if you provide a notice 30 days beforehand you are guaranteed of having provided it timely. anything less becomes facts and circumstances. for instance, a 3% SHNEC would probably be viewed less of a problem than a SHMAC and since there are some design questions there is nothing to prevent you from provided everyone with something that says (assuming it is decided to provide some type of safe harbor) "we will be providing some special type of contribution starting Jan 1 = to x or y. when we finalize things we will provide you a notice - very shortly." most likely that would cover a facts and circumstance issue.