RatherBeGolfing

LOL if so can I dislike my own post? Im not sure I agree with FTWs interpretation as to applicable plan years

FTW just responded to my request from yesterday with the following 1. Does the FTW document allow for us to use forfeitures for SH contributions in light of the proposed rule? ANSWER: No 2. If it does not, will we be able to to tack on an amendment to allow us to do so for the 12/31/2016 plan year? ANSWER: No. This regulation did not make the changes until 2017 so this can only be applied prospectively. 3. if so, when can we expect such an amendment? Since CPAs are already beating down our door for 2016 numbers, we need guidance on this ASAP. ANSWER: We will be releasing an email soon with more details so please watch for that communication.

No worries I did the same thing earlier and then found the original thread :)

Thanks. I went over the FTW VS Document and I'm pretty sure it requires an amendment as it appears they did not draft the document to be flexible in case the IRS changed their minds. I spoke to FTW support and they said they were reviewing the guidance and will send out a technical release in a few weeks... Edit: If anyone else uses FTW documents it may speed things up if you submit a support ticket asking for speedy guidance. The more the merrier right :)

I wish the Mods could sticky posts so they would stay on the top of the list. Especially when we have new published guidance, it would eliminate duplicate threads and funnel it into one place. On a side note, I figured out how to delete my duplicate thread

I made the same mistake and started a new topic...there is a thread here for the release. I wish the Mods could sticky stuff like this so it stayed on the top when it is newsworthy

So we can rely on the proposed reg with respect to 12/31/2016 year end plans if the document allows for it. What about a plan that does not allow for it because the PPA language did not anticipate the IRS change of heart. Could a January 20, 2017 amendment be applicable to the 12/31/2016 plan year?

Thanks. I'm thinking the opinion has something about ASG in it and the advisor is getting his terminology mixed up.

Dr. Payne owns 100% of Payne PLLC ( A ) Dr. Aichen owns 100% of Aichen PLLC (B) Aichen Payne PLLC (C) is owned by A & B A owns 60% of C B owns 40% of C Per attribution, I would say that Dr. Payne owns 60% of C and Dr. Aichen owns 40% C. Dr. Payne also owns 100% of another practice and is considering his financial advisor wants to install a 401(k) plan. The advisor has been told (supposedly by a lawyer) that because the doctors as individuals own 100% of their PLLC's which own their shares of C, they have a controlled group. I have asked for the exact wording of the opinion, but I just don't see a CG issue here. Am I missing something?

Yep, that is how we handle non-payroll loan payments to John Hancock. Participant cuts check to ER, ER cuts check to JH and everyone is happy.

I agree. My point was more along the lines that the employer can't throw their hands up and say "sorry we don't have it". If they don't have the records, they have to get the records from a service provider, they don't have another option.

No question about it, it is the PA's responsibility. And they have to have the records, they are required to by law. If they don't, their service providers do. If the service providers don't... Can the PA even execute what is in the QDRO if it has no records? I just don't see how.

FWIW, I use 2K for 401(k)+SHM only plans. The instructions are unclear at best and generate inconsistent answers, which was part of the reasoning for dropping the codes and adding compliance questions to the proposed 5500. I have never heard of the IRS making a big deal of the codes if they are wrong but I would rather use one than omit one.

By not breaking the law...

No No No. You cannot exclude someone based on national origin, period! Excluding someone because they are not a US citizen is excluding based on national origin. Title VII civil rights act ring a bell? You do not have to be a citizen to have a valid SSN. Many non-citizens have valid SSNs.

And they probably also missed the "with no US income" part

You are correct, I forgot about the substantial presence test which could include an someone who is not here legally as resident alien for tax purposes. I would still avoid the term for plan purposes and use reasonable classification.

John Hancock keeps 2 years of statements on the website. it is possible to get older statements from them but it is like pulling teeth because the rep has to put in a lot of work to get it. Keep pushing when they say they can't get and eventually they will get it for you.

Bird you are correct that the selection is in the loan policy. However, the basic plan document also provides : Section 8.06 (f) Security. All loans shall be secured by no more than one-half of the vested portion of the Participant's Accounts (determined immediately after the origination of the loan) and such additional security as the Plan Administrator may deem necessary. All loans made to Participants under this Section are to be considered Trust Fund investments and shall be segregated as provided in Article 9 hereof unless the Plan Administrator provides otherwise. Section 9.02 (c) Loans. If the Adoption Agreement does not permit Participant self-direction, any assets that are held in the form of a Participant loan made pursuant to Article 8 shall be treated as a segregated investment unless otherwise provided by the Plan Administrator.

I'm going to jump in here and say no. You are coming very close to discriminating based on national origin which is (or could be) a civil rights violation. Find a better way to exclude those people. Also, there is a huge terminology issue here. A resident alien is a lawful US resident who just happens to be a non-citizen. A resident alien would have none of the issues the OP mentioned like SSN, legal status, etc.

I'm not a big fan of loans in the first place, but I see it however it is defined in the document. I have no problem treating it either way. Post EGTRRA, I have not seen a document silent on it so it really isn't a judgment call it is just a matter of following the document. The other participants are probably not seeing decline in their earnings due to the loan since earnings on those assets would have been allocated to the participant with the loan.

Thats my bad, I misinterpreted your first comment as saying loans from pooled assets should be treated as an investment of the trust rather than separate from the trust.

I wouldn't go as far as "should". It is not uncommon to treat a participant loan as a segregated asset (some documents use term participant directed asset) even when you have a pooled trust.

I may or may not have liked this post... We will never know...

I agree.