RatherBeGolfing

The exclusion does not apply of there is a US source of income. It is a very narrow exclusion. Derrin Watson has a very good explanation here Who is the Employer

It depends on how you do your amendment. If you simply amend the plan to require 1Y/A21, anyone who has not satisfied the eligibility requirements are not eligible. It doesn't matter if they are current participants because the plan has immediate entry. There is no 411(d)(6) issue here. Also remember that just because you CAN exclude anyone who does not meet the new requirements doesn't mean that you have to. You could draft your amendment to only impact new hires. There are other issues such as discrimination, especially if you have a pattern of amendments in favor of HCEs, but you do not have to grandfather a participant who has not met the new requirements.

That was it, you changed it from .xls to .pdf. On my end, I just changed it back to .xls and it worked like a charm.

There was absolutely a clear answer at Annual but some in the audience did not want to accept the answer. The answer is that if you have immediate eligibility and later change that eligibility to something else, those who have not met the new eligibility are now not eligible to participate. There are no cutback issues here (which is what Brian was saying in his session and Sal confirmed during the general session the next day). But wait there is more... If you want the people who are in the plan to stay in, simply make your amendment prospective and you won't have any issues. As for discrimination issues, you should be fine changing the eligibility within the statutory limits.

I agree with the comments above, this is not a late deferral since that has to do with when the assets left the employer and was deposited to the trust. That clearly occurred. This is another problem all together. Is there an easy way to determine what the deferral should have earned had it ended up in the right account? After that it is a "simple" matter of making making each participant whole. The person who got the extra deferral should not benefit from it and the person who was shorted should not lose out because of it. To add an extra wrinkle, the correction could also vary depending on the recordkeeper. Some RKs will insists on an earnings calculation if you move a mistaken deposit from one participant to another, while others will be fine with just transferring the deferral.

Thanks Tom. This actually reminded me that I did not respond to my own topic (how is that for a bad job)... Mike sent me a spreadsheet that did exactly what I needed. Thanks for the attempt though and hopefully it led to learning how to attach a new item :)

That is the first time I hear of the IRS making an unannounced visit to a for a missing 945. That sounds like a huge waste of resources. As for the $0 945, you are correct that no 945 is needed. However, when the IRS requests a 945 for a period when no 945 is needed, you file a $0 945 to resolve the issue. That is usually printed on the IRS notice requesting the prior year 945. For some reason, responses to notices regarding 945's have a tendency to go missing. This is why I always send them certified mail / return receipt. I would get a POA right away and look into the visit though, it is possible there is more going on than missing 945.

The ERISA Outline book says to reverse payroll if not yet deposited to the plan. If already deposited to the plan:

Short but detailed summary of the arguments and the ruling

I would be very careful with any kind of settlement payment. Just because it sounds like back pay does not mean that is what it is. You have to look at the specifics of the settlement. Back pay is compensation you were supposed to get for services rendered but did not get. The original post does not mention anything about the participant being underpaid, only that she threatened to sue for wrongful termination and the company ended up settling during arbitration. That sounds like severance to me, which is a payment for the termination itself, and not services rendered.

If it is a settlement or severance pay as Lou points out, it shouldn't be plan comp as it is not pay for services. It will be very important to find out exactly what her payment is, but it shouldn't be used simply because they run it through payroll.

Generally, I would expect the availability of an appeal in the section of the QDRO procedure that describes what the procedure for notifying the P and AP of a determination that the DRO is NOT a QDRO. Any appeal should be limited to whether or not the DRO is qualified. To change what is in the order they would need to go through the court. If the procedures are silent as to who has control over segregated assets during the appeals period, I would give control to the AP. The reason is simple, you have already determined that you have a QDRO.

Ok I found something that may work! The measuring tool. Go to Tools --> Review and Approve --> Measure Click on the straight line measuring tool and click somewhere on the left side of the screen and then on the right side. You now have a red horizontal line that will move up and down with the mouse without clicking!

In Acrobat (I use Acrobat Pro DC), turn on the rulers feature. Move your cursor to the ruler on your left hand side and double click on the ruler. This will produce a horizontal line on the screen that you can drag and move, sort of like an actual ruler on paper. It is a little limited as you have to actually click and drag the line rather than just scroll or arrow down but it is the best workaround I have found. Also, double clicking on the top ruler will produce a vertical line but I rarely have a use for that. I hope that helps. J

Well it would depend on the loan policy and when default occurs. As long as payments resume and are paid in full within the cure period, a participant could request that no payroll deduction is made for some period of time. In that sense you could "pause" payroll deductions, but if you stop and the cure period expires your scenario above is correct.

I agree. You cannot force a participant to make the loan payment, even if the loan paperwork says via payroll deduction and the participant agreed to the terms. If the participant does not meet his/her obligations, then you default the loan when appropriate, that is your recourse. As bird said, others will disagree.

Enjoy retirement!

Is your concern issuing a 1099 for a non participant? That isn't a problem, you are simply reporting who had income from the plan and how much was taxable.

Does anyone have a simple earned income calculation spreadsheet they would be willing to share? Our old software had a calculator induced but our new one does not. I was going to sit down and create a spreadsheet calculator for it but it struck me that someone here may have a simple one already. Thanks J

That is an interesting point. Is that because its a separate class exemption not necessarily tied to the rule? Are there any other "companions" to the rule that may not be impacted by the delay?

Yes and no. (I think) It would be impossible to comply with the memo and keep the April 10 implementation date. It removes the specific 180 day delay. Unless they have new superpowers at the DOL, they will issue some sort of delay. They have to comply with the Presidents directive AND give us guidance, it aint happening in 60 days...

I'm optimistic. DC is a tricky place. As much as I study procedure and rules for "fun", it is impossible to really figure out unless you work with it on a daily basis. After talking to people who are lot smarter than me, my understanding is that they can't simply say we don't like it and put it on the shelf indefinitely. There are limits to how they can delay it and for how long without going through certain procedures. That would include issuing proposed revisions open for public comment and so on. This is why we had the effective date of 2016 and implementation date of 2017. If it would have had an effective date of April 2017, they could simply put in the recycling bin and move on.

I doubt this is one that will be eliminated. But by all means read whatever into the halt you wish. Delays and revisions happen all the time, so do eliminations. Obama scrapped the fiduciary rule the GWB admin had on the table and waited 7 years to roll out a new one. All I'm saying is it is a delay, not elimination. They can't eliminate it right away even if they wanted to since the DOL made the rule effective last year (gee I wonder why they did that) with an implementation date for this year. That means they will need to jump through hoops to kill it and I don't see them doing it. Revisions, yes, elimination no. I know as much as anyone else so I could be wrong. For the record, I'm in favor of the rule. There are some sections I would tweak and there are certainly sections that even the DOL don't know how to practically enforce (that is why we need guidance), but I think it is a good rule in general. That said, all they have announced is a delay to review, so all the speculation about them killing the rule because of XYZ is premature at best.

A halt to rule is not a big deal in my opinion. It does not mean the rule is gone. It means they are going to review it. We can all speculate on the reasons why it is delayed, but the truth is the Obama DOL didn't give them much of a choice. We were supposed to get several big pieces of guidance on the rule from the DOL prior to the implementation date. We were expecting this guidance in 4 key areas. The DOL delivered last minute (about 3 months later than were were expecting) guidance that covered less than half of what we were promised guidance on. I firmly believe we will have a rule, but it may be tweaked in some areas. In order to implement, we need more guidance, a delay was unavoidable.

K2 I believe the the question had to do with being able to sign for benefits, like waiving something or starting to collect benefits etc. Also worth noting that that at least one panelist (Rob Richter with FIS I believe) disagreed with the IRS panelist and maintained that under Florida law a POA could be narrowly drafted to do just that.