CuseFan

So a 3% SH plus a 10% match? I would be asking/checking if they really need to be a SH plan with a match like that and with up to 13% available/possible for employer contributions, are they as efficiently designed as they can be - subject to employer objectives of course. I thought you had to ACP the entire match, but I don't do that testing so I'm not sure.

rather than amend and allow in by name, maybe consider something like PAs hired between X-Y, or similar. comes across more like satisfying a business need rather than catering to an individual employee. but purely semantics.

If A has no assets or liabilities or such is being liquidated/settled and A no longer exists as an entity, and then the former employees of A become employees of B, then hard pressed to say a merger, but is that truly the case? If there is equipment and/or a book of business/patients that are transferring to B then more likely a merger.

Just had this conversation with a colleague but in the context of a single employer plan, so not sure if requirements are the same. Yes, you generally must provide updated SPD to all participants but there is an alternative manner of compliance with respect to deferred vested and retired participants. If you had provided them with the latest SPD and subsequent SMMs at the time of separation or commencement, then you can provide them with a notice that the SPD has been updated, and they can request a copy (at no charge), but that their benefits were determined on the basis of the terms as presented in the prior version of the SPD/SMMs which they received. See 2520.104b-4 Alternative methods of compliance for furnishing the summary plan description and summaries of material modifications of a pension plan to a retired participant, a separated participant with vested benefits, and a beneficiary receiving benefits

Depends on the terms of the plan, the size of the balance and the reason for the distribution.

Assuming the Plan Sponsor, not the TPA, is the Plan Administrator then the Sponsor should be the one authorizing cash out distributions and default rollovers and failure to do so in accordance with the plan document is an operational defect. If 402(f) notices have been sent, the proper time elapses, and rollovers are not made then you have a compliance problem - this is no different than if someone returned an election saying pay me and withhold taxes but then never gets paid. Also, ignoring a cash out provision altogether, which doesn't appear to be your case, is an operational defect as well.

Agree w/CBZ and any facts about the investment - no matter how stellar - are irrelevant.

The eligibility computation period is the first twelve months of employment and should not be impacted by a short plan year, I wouldn't think. Your pro-rated hours for short plan year apply to hours for vesting and contribution entitlement. Although, if you shift eligibility computation period to the plan year because 1000 hours was not worked in first twelve months and that is the short year then I would say you prorate according to the length of the short year.

Lou is correct - they must get at least 30 days to elect direct distribution with taxes withheld or a direct rollover.

If an employee is eligible to make a deferral in a plan they are considering benefiting under that plan for purposes of 410(b), so in your case it appears to be both plans.

Or they can consider an outsourced loan administrator/product, like My Plan Loan, which can work with a TPA and takes the employer out of the equation. This also allows for continued loan repayments after an employee terminates. Doesn't make a lot of sense for one, but if they expect more loans in the future it may be worthwhile to explore.

If statutory changes, probably OK, but if discretionary changes then VCP is the proper way to go. If the amendment was a reduction or limitation compared to prior revision, you'll likely need documentation of all the other steps completed in a timely manner, such as board resolution, employee communications, vendor communications, etc. demonstrating timely employer intent and (with the exception of signature) execution.

I don't think making a lump sum payment now gets them out of any future periodic payments. My mortgage allows me to make additional ad hoc payments but if I make the equivalent of six monthly payments that does not relieve me of the obligation to make my next six payments. I would think the loan program allowance is for additional ad hoc principal payments rather than consolidating 12 semi-monthly payments into one semi-annual payment (6 into one quarterly payment - although that may be OK under 72(p) - but you are essentially changing the term of the loan). I would also see what the note says.

Exactly, you have three plans with all employees in all three plans. Whether X, Y or Z can declare and allocate a PS contribution to their intended plan only depends on the terms of the respective plans.

and these must be done thru payroll withholding based on deferral election you made before the pay became available to you - i.e., you can't "write a check" at year-end for your catch-up contribution (unless you're self-employed like a partner in a partnership).

You may permissively aggregate for NDT if you also aggregate for coverage and BRFs, none of which should present a problem.

Failsafe language in DC is for coverage, which you pass, so that wouldn't kick in right? You could do 11g amendment to add NHCE of your choice for PS only - but may need to vest if not already partially vested.

That is a huge challenge, and near impossible if the employer (or participant) is in certain states (NY in particular) - which we've encountered trying to secure contracts on terminating DBPs with small liabilities that don't meet underwriting minimums. The plan buys the contract right, then distributes to participant? Also, I assume the person has reached NRA - so check the document and also determine whether person is missing or unresponsive. Are mailings being received/acknowledged or returned undeliverable? Have further diligent searches been performed? If missing, document may allow you to forfeit. If unresponsive, there may be communications sent that would elicit a response, such as "if you do not make an election then your account balance must be used to purchase an annuity for you from an insurance company which will then pay you a monthly benefit based on its current interest, mortality and fee structure, which will be locked in for the rest of your (and your spouse's) life". Telling them you're giving their money to an insurance company should generate a response. It has been a few years since I talked with them, because unfortunately they do not write contracts in NY, but Pacific Life was a company that seemed to indicate they would not shy away from small contracts. Good luck.

If plan(s) say TH provided in DC, then your TH% is 5% and your 3% SH counts toward that, leaving 2% PS to satisfy TH - BUT, as noted above, you should confirm such in the document.

Employer contributions in excess of 415 must be put in suspense, but if any remain on plan termination I thought those could actually be returned to the employer. I thought salary deferrals in excess of 415 get refunded regardless.

ditto. sometimes partnerships need that long to determine their income, and sometimes those determinations show little or no income, and income is needed for salary deferrals - so not only is this permissible, it is also quite reasonable.

As most of the participants on this site can attest from experience, the answer to that is almost always yes and even if you take the corrective steps as discussed, don't be surprised if the client still gets a "what's up" letter.

From page 17 of 1099R instructions. It sure looks like 7B is the appropriate code to me. B—Designated Roth account distribution. Use Code B for a distribution from a designated Roth account. But use Code E for a section 415 distribution under EPCRS (see Code E) or Code H for a direct rollover to a Roth IRA. 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, G, L, M, P, or U

yes, generally the latest NRA between the two plans.

You say a separate location, but I assume you mean a separate business. As jpod noted, you'll need to first determine if there is a control group or affiliated service group and, if neither applies, you should be good to go.