RatherBeGolfing

Yes and no. If the client qualifies for relief, non-safe harbor contributions can be deposited by January 31, 2018. However, the deadline for safe harbor contributions is still 12 months after the end of the plan year, or December 31, 2017 for a calendar year plan. This prior thread has some good answers to your question

You wouldn't have to bill the entire expense in advance. You would just bill enough to use the leftover forfeiture. I still favor a contribution equal to the forfeiture amount, as long as it doesn't cause top heavy issues.

There should be language in the document stating when forfeitures must be used. It will probably state something along the lines of "no later than the year following forfeiture". As discussed above, you can allocate just enough use the rest of the forfeiture, but you can't use a $0 allocation to keep from using the forfeiture. This shouldn't be an issue as long as you are not relying on "safe harbor only" to be exempt from top heavy rules. Another possibility could be to send the client an invoice for next years work now. While not official guidance, the IRS did say at a conference Q&A a few years ago that if invoiced and paid in the year when the forfeiture needs to be used, it could be used to pay for next year's expenses.

The IRS would disagree.

My bad I meant fiduciary not participant, this is 408b2 after all. Check MoJo's detailed answer in this thread He explains it much better than I can recite it from the beach on my day off

Very possible. Of course, simply getting all the information into the disclosure might not be enough if it isn't understandable. I believe MoJo has shared some stories on how in depth the DOL is getting when looking at the disclosures, and looking at whether the participants understand whet the disclosure means rather than just technically correct...

I can't speak to the merits of the designation, but I have had a few run-ins with people holding the designation and they have been nightmares. In those instances, the CDFA wouldn't know a QDRO if it bit them in the ass and they failed to comprehend the difference between Plan Administrator, RK, and TPA. Edit: It is entirely possible I just had the misfortune of dealing with the bad apples, but my limited exposure has been pretty bad.

Yes. No. The instructions say to not include contributions designated for 2016 in column (1), which is the beginning of the year assets. 2016 contributions are included in column 2, which is EOY assets. No. They are included in 7a-c and 8a-c.

Disaster Tax Relief and Airway Extension Act of 2017 (H.R. 3823) ASPPA NET article

Yep for 2018 I agree its a one-participant plan

It did cover an employee in 2017 though, so how would it meet the definition of a "one-participant plan"?

Yep. Our document uses the "any permissible method" catchall for forfeitures.

You report it on the 2017 Form 5500 because it was due in 2017 even though the first distribution year was 2016. As of 12/31/2016, you had not yet failed to timely pay the benefit.

I agree with ESOP that your answer isn't in the regs its in the document. That said, it isn't necessarily 2017 comp, and it isn't necessarily that complicated. If the document allows for post year end comp to be included, it would be 2016 comp. Read your document, it should be very simple to figure out whether it is 2017 comp (most likely) or 2016 comp for plan purposes.

I can't see a reason why the relief in Announcement 2017-13 would NOT apply to Georgia. It wouldn't make sense grant 7508A relief while not granting hardship and loan relief. 2017-13 did refer to Florida counties but also included the following: I would also note that 2017-13 refers to areas identified for individual assistance, because that was how the IRS initially limited the relief in Florida. The subsequent expansion to individual OR public assistance would include all of Georgia just like the 7508A relief.

I have never used Datair, but I made the switch from Relius to FTW a few years ago. I did not find FTW system difficult to learn at all, and their support staff is very helpful. The most time consuming part of the switch was the conversion, but after that I haven't come across an issue I couldn't solve myself or solve with a quick call to support (and they take your calls right away). Do you have any particular concerns?

GA-2017-02 seems to grant relief to all Georgia counties Also, the IRS page dedicated to Irma relief provides: (EDIT: The way the IRS updates information can be a bit confusing. In the early days after Irma, only counties that qualified for individual assistance qualified for IRS relief. This was later expanded to individual OR public assistance, which is a much bigger area.)

The problem is that the IRS is not consistent in how they enforce the CE requirements. Circular 230 § 10.6 (e) (2) (i) states that you need 72 hours including 6 hours of ethics per enrollment cycle 230 § 10.6 (e) (2) (ii) states that you need a minimum of 16 hours of continuing education credit, including two hours of ethics or professional conduct, during each enrollment year of an enrollment cycle. The requirement is clearly there. Whether they follow the rules is a different question. Unless you have it in writing that you can ignore § 10.6 (e) (2) (ii), I would be very careful. What happens if you get another person reviewing your renewal? I know people who have gotten renewals when they had less than 72 hours in a cycle or lacked the ethics credits. They were told to do an additional credit in their next cycle. I also know people who have had to fight tooth and nail to get their renewals because their paperwork never made it to the appropriate office even though they had proof of delivery. Follow Circular 230 and you are always safe. It isn't worth risking a credential that you can no longer test for.

I wouldn't amend, just move it to the line the auditor wants. As a side note, I have one auditor from a large CPA firm that does tons of audits, who insists that the correct line item on the Sch H is "Mutual Funds" rather than "PSA" for a platform type plan. They claim that because then underlying assets in the PSAs are mutual funds, the correct line item is mutual funds rather than PSAs. The first year they audited, we shifted the assets from PSA to mutual funds. All my other similar plans with other auditors use the line for PSA.

Both methods are allowed. See §1.401(a)(9)-5, Q&A-3(b) (2002 regulations) Note that the 1987 and 2001 regulations required the inclusion of amounts attributable to a plan year but deposited after December 31. For more detail see EOB Ch 6, Section IV, Part D, 2.c.

Failure to plan and having less comp at the end of the year is not a mistake of fact. But agree to disagree.

EPCRS 6.06(2) (2) Correction of Excess Allocations. In general, an Excess Allocation is corrected in accordance with the Reduction of Account Balance Correction Method set forth in this paragraph. Under this method, the account balance of an employee who received an Excess Allocation is reduced by the Excess Allocation (adjusted for Earnings). If the Excess Allocation would have been allocated to other employees in the year of the failure had the failure not occurred, then that amount (adjusted for Earnings) is reallocated to those employees in accordance with the plan’s allocation formula. If the improperly allocated amount would not have been allocated to other employees absent the failure, that amount (adjusted for Earnings) is placed in a separate account that is not allocated on behalf of any participant or beneficiary (an unallocated account) established for the purpose of holding Excess Allocations, adjusted for Earnings, to be used to reduce employer contributions (other than elective deferrals) in the current year or succeeding year. While such amounts remain in the unallocated account, the employer is not permitted to make contributions to the plan other than elective deferrals. Excess Allocations that are attributable to elective deferrals or after-tax employee contributions (adjusted for Earnings) must be distributed to the participant. For qualification purposes, an Excess Allocation that is corrected pursuant to this paragraph is disregarded for purposes of §§ 402(g) and 415, the actual deferral percentage test of § 401(k)(3), and the actual contribution percentage test of § 401(m)(2). If an Excess Allocation resulting from a violation of § 415 consists of annual additions attributable to both employer contributions and elective deferrals or after-tax employee contributions, then the correction of the Excess Allocation is completed by first distributing the unmatched employee’s after-tax contributions (adjusted for Earnings) and then the unmatched employee’s elective deferrals (adjusted for Earnings). If any excess remains, and is attributable to either elective deferrals or after-tax employee contributions that are matched, the excess is apportioned first to after-tax employee contributions with the associated matching employer contributions and then to elective deferrals with the associated matching employer contributions. Any matching contribution or nonelective employer contribution (adjusted for Earnings) which constitutes an Excess Allocation is then forfeited and placed in an unallocated account established for the purpose of holding Excess Allocations to be used to reduce employer contributions in the current year and succeeding year. Such unallocated account is adjusted for Earnings. While such amounts remain in the unallocated account, the employer is not permitted to make contributions (other than elective deferrals) to the plan.

§7508A relief has been granted for those affected by Irma. The relief declaration reads in part Treas. Reg. § 301.7508A-1(c)(1)(iii) (iii) Making contributions to a qualified retirement plan (within the meaning of section 4974(c)) under section 219(f)(3), 404(a)(6), 404(h)(1)(B), or 404(m)(2); making distributions under section 408(d)(4); recharacterizing contributions under section 408A(d)(6); or making a rollover under section 402(c), 403(a)(4), 403(b)(8), or 408(d)(3);

Mr Bagwell is correct, it is placed in an unallocated account to be allocated at a later date. You must allocate the funds prior to making any further contributions to the plan. As long as it is an employer contribution, you can use it, so either match or PS would be fine. Since it is an unallocated account rather than forfeiture, you cannot use it for expenses.

Additional qualifying Florida counties added on 9/14 Citrus DeSoto Glades Harde Hendry Hernando Highlands Indian River Lake Marion Martin Okeechobee Osceola Seminole Sumter Volusia