RatherBeGolfing

Participant A is not eligible to participate as of 04/01/16. Whether they started contributing doesn't matter for eligibility. A has a balance but cannot continue deferring until the new eligibility has been met. A couple of incidental notes: For purposes of the 5500, A still counts as a participant, but not an active participant Since A has a balance, s/he must receive all applicable notices, disclosures and statements such as SMMs, SPDs, etc...

To clarify, we file an annual return for all of our one-participant plans, regardless of assets. Doing so starts the SOL for the plan year and eliminates any need to track limits or whether the plan is still exempt. In my opinion, there are no compelling reasons to rely on the exemption.

Same here.

Participant A enters 3/1/16 when plan had immediate eligibility On 4/1/16 the plan is amended to require 1 year of service for anyone hired after 12/31/2015 As of 4/1/16, Participant A is no longer eligible to participate until s/he satisfies 1 year of service. Did the plan allow A to keep participating after 4/1/16?

no retroactive applicability, anyone in the plan will stay in the plan even if they don't meet the new eligibility.

The short answer is yes, you can "un-participate" an employee who has not met the eligibility requirements (or by excluding the employee by classification), even if you let them participate in the plan when you had less restrictive requirements. There is no protected right to continued participation. From the 2017 EOB (Ch 2, Section VI, Part E) If you don't want to exclude current participants who have not met the new eligibility requirements, simply make the amendment prospective. Keep in mind that this could create a discrimination problem if it favors HCEs. I hope that helps.

Hmmm well I was able to drag and drop as well but it attached as a picture rather than and attachment

Absolutely, it all depends on what you want to accomplish. I do think it is important to point out that you do not have to do it prospective only though, as there seem to be some confusion in this area. Of course, just because you can does not mean that you should.

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.