AdKu

Mike, I used the statement that you provided above (see below) =IF(OR(A1=0,B1=0,C1=0),"NO REQUIRED GT", IF(OR(AND(Table!A2=2,U22>=0.05), AND(Table!A2=1,U22>=0.075), AND(Table!A2=1, T21>30,T21<=35,U22>=0.07), AND(Table!A2=1,T21>25,T21<=30,U22>=0.06), AND(Table!A2=1,T21>15,T21<=25,U22>=0.05), AND(Table!A2=1,T21<15,U22>=((T21/3)/100))), "GT PASSES","GT FAILED"))

Thank you everyone. Unfortunately, the test result shows GT PASSES regardless of the values in cell T21 and the value in the corresponding cell U22. FYI: I used all your valuable recommendations, in particular Mike's generous suggestion. Any additional help is much appreciated!

Accidentally I posted my question under 'Technology' when I should have probably posted Under 401(k) plans. You guys are great and kind enough answering my questions. Thank you very much. Follow-up question Reviewing some of the information presented to me, I noticed Company B's 401(k) plan was merged to Company A's 401(k) Plan. Is there any wrong in this type of 401(k) arrangement when there is no controlled group between company A & Company B? If so, what is the best way to resolve the issue?

Companies Identical A B C ownership Owner 1 100% 51% 51% 51% Owner 2 0% 25% 25% 0% Owner 3 0% 24% 24% 0% 100% 100% 100% 51% Please help me figure out if there is any controlled group relationship whether it is Brother-Sister or Parent-Subsidiary

No, I'm not. I just want to make sure my understanding of Controlled group is accurate before making the final decision how to run the compliance test. It appears to me that the three owners fails the 80% common ownership of the Brother-Sister Controlled group test because owner 2 & 3 don't have any ownership interest at all in company A. It appears to me also that there is no Parent-Subsidiary.

Companies Identical A B C ownership Owner 1 100% 51% 51% 51% Owner 2 0% 25% 25% 0% Owner 3 0% 24% 24% 0% 100% 100% 100% 51% Please help me figure out if there is any controlled group relationship whether it is Brother-Sister or Parent-Subsidiary

I'm trying to improve a prospect check spreadsheet by adding DB/DC Gateway test check. But my if statement multiple conditions is not working for me. please help. If the plan has only HCEs or NHCEs - "NO REQUIRED GT" as in the first if clause If the plan is only DC then GT can be satisfied if all eligible ee receive at least 5% as in the 2nd if clause Otherwise, it will perform the GT check for DB/DC combo plan (given in the below table) as in the last five if clauses. HCE Gateway limit 1/3 to 5% 15-25% 6% 25-30% 7% 30-35% 7.50% >35% =IF(OR(A1=0,B1=0,C1=0),"NO REQUIRED GT", IF(AND('Table'!A2=2,U22>=0.05),"GT PASSES", IF(AND(U22>=0.075,'Table'!A2=1),"GT PASSES", IF(AND(T21>30,T21<=35,U22>=0.07, 'Table'!A2=1),"GT PASSES", IF(AND(T21>25,T21<=30,U22>=0.06, 'Table'!A2=1),"GT PASSES", IF(AND(T21>15,T21<=25,U22>=0.05, 'Table'!A2=1),"GT PASSES", IF(AND(T21<15,U22>=T21/3),"GT PASSES", "GT FAILED")))))))

Thank you all, The old plan document (prepared by the prior TPA) is a Nonstandardized Prototype 401(k) & Profit Sharing Plan. The base document has the following: 2 Rules for Crediting Vesting Service 4.2.1 Except to the extent provided in Section 4.2.2, unless otherwise elected in the Adoption Agreement, all Years of Service are credited to determine a Participant’s Vesting Service. 4.2.2 An Employee’s Vesting Service after a Period of Severance or Break-in-Service, as applicable, of at least 5 years is not counted in computing the nonforfeitable percentage in his Employer Contribution Account derived from contributions accrued before the Period of Severance or Break-in-Service, as applicable. The Adoption Agreement (AA)has the following: B. Vesting Service - option 1 in checked/selected 1. All years of service are credited to determine a Participant's Vesting Service. The only rule in the base plan doc is as follows: 9.2 Limitations on Plan Amendment (f) change the vesting schedule, unless each Participant having not less than 3 years of Vesting Service is permitted to elect, within a reasonable period specified by the Administrative Committee after the adoption of the amendment, to have his nonforfeitable percentage computed without regard to the amendment. However, no election need be provided to any Participant whose nonforfeitable percentage under the Plan, as amended, cannot at any time be less than the percentage determined without regard to the amendment. Any amendment of the Plan’s vesting schedule that is adopted after August 9, 2006 shall preserve the accrued benefits of any Participant or Beneficiary under the Plan in accordance with the provisions of Treasury Regulation Section 1.411(d)-3(a)(3). Notwithstanding the foregoing, an election to discontinue the Traditional Safe Harbor 401(k) Plan or Qualified Automatic Contribution Arrangement option shall not be treated as a change in vesting schedule for purposes of Code §411(a)(10). ______________________________________________________________________ Our intention is to restate the plan document in its entity to Volume-submitter. What does the regulations say to follow in a situation like this?

A plan has been in existence for only one year. Prior plan doc. calls for all years of service counted for vesting purposes as well as used elapsed time method. We want to amend it so that for vesting purposes service crediting starts from date of participation and the service counting method will be hours of service method. My research didn't result exact answer the things I need to be careful in doing so. Is this permissible to start counting vesting service from the date of participation (at least for those who were hired in the amendment year)?

Is this required to provide Annual Funding Notice for a new small DB plan (less than 100 participant beginning of year) with end of year (12/31) Valuation date? It appears to me that that there is almost nothing (zero asset & zero Funding Target as of 12/31) to report. Any help and explanation is highly appreciated.

Year End Discretionary Matching Contribution amended to x% payroll by payroll Matching contribution effective June 1. Client made the 1st payroll by payroll matching contribution in June for the payroll period ended March instead of the effective date of June. Is this permissible to back date (effective date was June 1st for payroll by payroll) and match deferrals as far back as 3 months? If yes, should it from the beginning of the plan year. I didn't find any language in the amended & restated plan document regarding the possibility that the plan sponsor has discretionary power to back date and match deferrals on X% payroll by payroll. Thanks!

Thank you all!!!

Thank you Lou S. The auditor is not still satisfied. Excerpt from our e-mail exchange: If the plan requires the matching be paid pay period by pay period, which is how the matching is being paid, why are we not including the matching as late? These are monies that participants are entitled to, even though there may be a period of time until they are vested in them. Can you please take another look and see. It appears he want some kind of proof, which I'm short of at this time.

My understanding of late deposit reporting applies to employee contribution. My client auditor thinks the late payroll by payroll matching contribution associated with the late deferral contributions deposits need also to be reported on Form 5500 Schedule H line 4a. do late matching contributions deposit (associated with late deferrals) added to the late deferral contributions and reported on Form 5500 schedule H line 4a? Many thanks!

Many thanks!!!

Can you define HCE based on current year compensation instead of look back year compensation in the plan document for compliance testing purposes?

Due to error in payroll reporting, 10 employees were not allocated employer contribution for the initial plan year, i.e., a calendar year plan established in 2015. These employees are going to receiving non-elective employer contribution now, i.e., in November 2016. How do we report this contribution on Form 5500? Should it be reported on the 2015 Form 5500 or on the 2016 Form 5500. From my reading, it appears that these contribution will be part of the 2016 limit, i.e., for the purposes of 415 as well as 404. Does this limitation apply to deferrals, too? 4 plan participants deferral contribution deducted from their respective 2015 earnings were not deposited to the plan until this time . Unfortunately, from one of the participants, an HCE, $18,000 was deducted from his 2015 earning as deferral contribution but only $16,500 was deposited during 2015. The plan is correcting the error by depositing the $1,500 including the lost earnings now (October 17, 2016). Does this $1,500 count against his 2016 402(g) limit?

Many thanks austin

Does Elective Deferrals under Sec. 408(k)(6) (SARSAP) added back to the elective deferral under Sec. 401(k) Plan when performing the ADP test? Background information: Reviewing a copy of the 2015 Form W-3 totals (under the summary of W-2 Data) for a new prospect, I have learned that there are both Code D (with 35 employee count) and Code F (with 12 employee count) for box 12. It appears that this new prospect established a new 401(k) plan in 2015 when the number of eligible employee goes over 25. For part of the 2015 plan year; however, this new prospect some employees deferred under the 408(k)(6). From my reading of ERISA outline book Chapter 11 that goes over 401(k) vs. SARSEPs, the deferrals in both plan needs to be added to make sure the total doesn't go over the 402(g) limit. Also, ADP test for the two type of plan is very different. But I’m still not 100% sure whether I should use the total of the two different plan deferrals for my ADP test as I should do for 402(g) limit test.

A small plan form 5500 (exempt from audit) was filed with DOL for a newly established plan. But later a client internal auditor found out there were misreporting on the employee/participant payroll data. As a result, the participant count for this new plan found to be more than 100. Can this error simply be corrected by amending & filing a large plan form 5500 with audit report? I would like to hear the opinion of anyone who had the similar issue.

Thank you for your prompt reply. It is for a full plan year and the option under discussion is not available to use.

I tried to read as much as I can on this forum about what to do when the audit report is not available to attach. Some practitioner, mentioned about attaching a pdf file with a statement stating 'audit report is not available at the time of filing'. Later, they will go back and amend the filing. I even heard someone saying you are allowed to do so but needs to amend the plan within 45 days and attache the audit report. I also know that on Form 5500 Schedule H there is an option that states "d The opinion of an independent qualified public accountant is not attached because: (2) It will be attached to the next Form 5500 pursuant to 29 CFR 2520.104-50" Can I use this option If Audit report is not ready for initial plan year? What are the things I need to know about using this option. I would appreciate if anyone share me their opinions. If Audit report is not ready for initial plan year, can I use the option On Form 5500 Schedule H there is an option that states "d The opinion of an independent qualified public accountant is not attached because: (2) It will be attached to the next Form 5500 pursuant to 29 CFR 2520.104-50"

The participant count for a newly established plan at the beginning of the year was 119. The independent auditor who was hired to perform the financial statement audit for the plan insisted that this new plan must file as a small plan and doesn't need audit. My understanding is that the 80/120 rule is not applicable to a new plan if the the number of participants is over 99 for the 1st year of the plan. The 2014 Edition ERISA Outline Book page 13A.76 states: "Must have at least one year where participant count is below 100. This exception is not applicable to a new plan which starts with a participant count above 99. A plan must have at least one year with a participant count below 100, where it is eligible to file as a small plan filer, before it can use this exception when the participant count rises above 99."

Simplified version was posted earlier. Detail as follows: Yes, it is a takeover qualified DB plan. The benefit payment had started long ago before the plan brought to us. When the retiree deceased, his beneficiary started receiving the benefit. Unfortunately, I couldn’t find any scanned copy of the signed election form on file at this time. However, I was explained from one of my colleague that we could find the paper copy of the election somewhere in the storage.

A retiree has been receiving a retirement benefit based on his election of the 10 year certain only optional form of benefit over 10 years ago. Is there any sample letter out there to inform a retiree about the coming of the end the 10 year certain only optional form of benefit?