RatherBeGolfing

You would need to be a bit more creative and draft the exclusion in a way that excludes the people you need to exclude while not being discriminatory. You could probably exclude a class of employees who in writing disclaimed to the employer that their religious beliefs would preclude them from accepting employer contributions. You still have to pass testing though.

Its clear that the annual additions is X. The fact that you can get MORE than the annual additions doesn't change what the annual additions is. What OP quoted is an explanation of annual additions, not an explanation of the the most a participant can possibly be allocated in a plan year. It really isn't ambiguous, just different (yet related) concepts.

That was part of the proposal. My understanding is that the proposal has stalled because it isn't that high on the list of priorities and there is no funding to push forward at this time. It is possible that we will get a new proposal at some time though... Yea if you can't nail down the mailing date it is hard to use it. Is there a difference between when the money left the ERs account and when it was credited at the recordkeeper? Sometimes the RK will deposit one day and credit it in the following days. if so, you can use the earlier date since we are looking at when it was segregated from the ER assets. It might not be much per transaction but over the years the savings can really add up.

You are incorrect. As Lou has pointed out catch-up contributions are NOT subject to IRC §415. See IRC §414(v)(3)(A)(i). Therefore, when you are determining whether an employee's annual addition exceeds the limit in §415(c), you should NOT include catch-up contributions

Not OP obviously, but that was my interpretation. Wouldn't help the past years but would keep employers with lots of employees but little participation from being large plans if the count is by P's with a balance.

When contributions are mailed, use the date it was mailed rather than the date it cleared. The mailing date is when the contributions were separated from the employers assets. That will take a few extra days off your count.

1 - 95% 2 - 5%

A few thoughts: Are they just not going to do have the audit done for the years it was a large plan? That is a compliance issue I couldn't ignore. Either do it or move on. How many years to review? You know of issues going back to 2011. Same theory as above applies. You can't ignore known compliance issues. And these are pretty bad. A 35 day average for a large plan is a BIG deal to the DOL. You need to go back to 2011 and fix it. You can apply the 7 day safe harbor for the small plan years, but not the large. Unless you extraordinarily complex payroll system, 6 days isn't going to fly for a large plan. This is one of those "the rules are the rules" situations. 35 days 15th of the month following are non starters. An auditor will probably apply 2 days but sometimes a few more in rare cases, if reasonable. Here is what it comes down to to me: Don't make the clients problems your problems. They have serious compliance issues. Those issues need to be fixed properly. You are a professional. You know how to fix those issues properly. Don't create problems for yourself by not doing it right just because you want the business. It isn't worth it. Hopefully the client will realize that you are looking out for them and do the right thing.

What is their justification? It is much easier to tell them they are wrong if we know what basis they think they have for their solution.

While my Latin is limited, I have always found it surprisingly useful.

Even worse, they will read (and read into) anything they can get their hands on. For example, John Hancock's annual 404a-5 disclosure includes default language regarding what adjustments are made to the market value formula in their guaranteed interest accounts when there is a plan discontinuance, in-service, withdrawal, pre-retirement withdrawal, etc. I have a plan that does not allow in-service withdrawals, and a participant was repeatedly told under what circumstances she could have a distribution. She turns out to be one of the 0.0001 % of participants who actually read the 404a-5 disclosure and zero's in on the default language from JH regarding their guaranteed income accounts. From this she extrapolates that since the disclosure mentions in-service and pre-retirement withdrawals, that must mean that she has a right to them and that we (the sponsor, the PA, and the TPA) are illegally keeping her from accessing money that she entitled to.

Well I limited my response to the distribution options as I'm not convinced that it is a DRO qualification issue. That said, even with a QDRO, they can't refuse to submit the plans required paperwork for a distribution. The QDRO is how we get around the anti-alienation clause, by "creating" a right to receive a distribution of a participants benefits in a plan. So you could have a valid QDRO, but still have whatever forms, notices, and procedures you require for the actual distribution. Edit: I agree that the attorney can't demand that nothing is sent to or required from the AP, but I also don't see that as a DRO qualification issue unless they included in the actual DRO (which seems unlikely)

What is the actual wording in the plan document? Depending on how it is written, you could reasonably interpret that as the PLAN cannot refuse to honor an election by the AP that would have been available to the participant (or honor one that is not available to the participant) It is not uncommon to see a QDRO where the manner of distribution has already been "determined".

You may have to do some digging (or key word searching ) to find it. In my document, it is located in the section that details the authority and responsibility of the Plan Administrator.

I use FTW for documents, 5500/1099, and admin. I used to use Relius for everything. To me it comes down to two things, cost and need. On cost, FTW wins hands down. Do you need a lot of flexibility? Relius, while sometimes tedious to work with because of all the settings and options, is a lot more detailed than FTW (and any other system I have looked at). You have to know the system pretty well to use all the bells and whistles, but if you do, you can make it do pretty much anything you want. At least this was my experience 5+ years ago. I am happy with FTW. It does what I need it to do 99% of the time. The other 1% can be a pain and requires some creativity, but so far I haven't come across a problem I couldn't solve. Since FTW is less detailed/quirky, it is also easier to learn and use on the more basic and moderate levels. The one thing I really miss is being able to make the reports just the way I want them, like you can with Relius. With FTW you are pretty much stuck with their formatting options (although they are working on giving us more options to customize). If you really need to change the look of the reports, you can customize it on the user end in Word, Excel or Acrobat, but you need to be creative and it helps if you have a good understanding of macros.

Happy to help

We don't exclude severance pay simply because it is paid after separation. In fact, we can include post-severance pay if it would have paid to the employee if s/he continued to work. We exclude severance pay because it is not compensation for services rendered, it is compensation for terminating the employment agreement. As you have described the facts, you have a severance agreement which includes the promise of 26 installment payments. Were the 26 payments for services rendered? Would the 26 payments have been made had the employee not agreed to sever employment? I don't think the fact that the employee was re-hired matters here.

When you try to convince them to find another solution and / or refuse to take part in this illegal act, do so in writing.

What vendor are you using?

I have an attorney client who reads every page of every document I send him. During the EGTRRA restatement, I fielded over 20 questions on the language and context of certain sentences of the BPD. And this is for a very basic SH 401(k) plan.

Our BPD is 83 pages AA for a 401(k) is 38 pages SPD is 15 pages That gets us to 136. Depending on the clients needs (loan policy, forms, etc.) There are an additional 10-30 pages. We use Ft William's "prototype formatted" VS document.

PTIN System to reopen today PTINs issued without charge for now.

You are missing a variable. What is the rate of the match? could be 100% , 50% or something different.

Probably not a DOL issue. I believe the "port" is basically where your server meets the secure FTW server. I would expect that to be a temporary issue but I will be on the look out for it as well.

Thanks. Its funny how these things only happen to some users.