CuseFan

exactly - must include all employment with noted exceptions. can only start from participation date for those in the plan on the effective date (excluding service before there was a plan).

Yes, the plan is permitted to allow the participant to waive the QPSA and name a different beneficiary with spousal consent. Here is Relius VS language from a plan whose only death benefit is the QPSA. (a) Qualified Pre‑Retirement Survivor Annuity (QPSA). Unless otherwise elected as provided below, a Vested Participant who dies before the Annuity Starting Date and who has a surviving spouse shall have the death benefit paid to the surviving spouse in the form of a Pre‑Retirement Survivor Annuity. The Participant's spouse may direct that payment of the Pre‑Retirement Survivor Annuity commence within a reasonable period after the Participant's death (but not later than the month in which the Participant would have attained the Earliest Retirement Age under the Plan if the Participant dies on or before the Earliest Retirement Age). If the spouse does not so direct, payment of such benefit will commence at the time the Participant would have attained the later of Normal Retirement Age or age 62. However, the spouse may elect a later commencement date, subject to the rules specified in Section 5.9. (b) Election to waive QPSA. Any election to waive the Pre‑Retirement Survivor Annuity before the Participant's death must be made by the Participant in writing (or in such other form as permitted by the Internal Revenue Service) during the election period and shall require the spouse's irrevocable consent in the same manner provided for in Section 5.7(a)(2). Further, the spouse's consent must acknowledge the specific nonspouse Beneficiary. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the nonspouse Beneficiary need not be acknowledged, provided the consent of the spouse acknowledges that the spouse has the right to limit consent only to a specific Beneficiary and that the spouse voluntarily elects to relinquish such right.

Agree, MP you have funding deficiency (reported on the 5500) and don't forget the excise tax liability.

I have amended individually designed pension plans to do exactly that - but be careful what you wish for, because along comes a different acquisition where you don't want to do that and unless you amend to exclude before closing, it's too late, they're in. I don't know how this fits in pre-approved plans. If the sponsor knows they are acquiring all similar targets for which they want to credit service within a certain time period, I expect you could craft the provision to say all companies whose assets were acquired by the plan sponsor between xx/xx/xxxx and yy/yy/yyyy.

I would think/hope their partnership agreement spells out the (profit sharing) cost allocation. Not sure about ADP/ACP test, but my guess is no because they are not benefiting/eligible to benefit. If an employee was on leave all year and had no comp, but was not terminated, I assume they would not be included in test. This seems similar to me, but just my opinion.

NQDC payments to a qualified plan participant can be plan compensation (unless otherwise excluded by the document) if paid while still employed - hence the document language you cite. Remember, IRS position is that compensation paid after the employment relationship has severed is not plan compensation except for "post-severance compensation (PSC)" as defined in the plan and the Code, again, reason for your specific plan language. PSC must be pay the person was entitled to receive had employment continued. Since this payment was triggered by termination of employment it cannot be compensation for plan purposes. This is different than say a 457(f) arrangement, where a person may get a payout at a certain age if still employed (i.e., they vest), in which case such payout would potentially be plan compensation unless excluded (per your cite) or not otherwise covered under the plan's definition.

I think you all just spent more than $50 worth of professional time trying to figure out where to report $50, which you could easily explain to any auditor any decision you made without them caring.

Yes you can do this and it can work both ways, but each plan's language must provide. By way of example, I was part of a group that was spun out of A and acquired by B. Not only did B recognize past service with A for eligibility and vesting, A recognized future service with B for vesting in A's plan, important for those not already vested at the time of transaction. The one condition was you didn't take a distribution from A's plan.

I don't admin DC plans, but I thought the highest outstanding balance consideration only applied to the $50,000 - so someone could not take additional loans to maintain a continual $50,000 loan balance - but does not apply to the 50% vested balance limitation.

Of course none of those recommendations work if the borrowing-fiend is the owner of the plan sponsor, but they're never the ones to push the limits on administrative burdens!

yes

Agree with David, why would not you test first and know that your design will work rather than scramble afterwards when you find out there is/might be a problem? How would you include in the amendment? If after all the elections are made and we test, if fail, then HCE ER elections are null and void? So the benefit does not accrue for an HCE until testing is performed and passes, which would have to be done by a specified time. Maybe that flies.

In the past, in similar circumstance, I checked yes and added the simple description of the offset of benefits provided by the other plan.

9/15 is a hard deadline for ERISA minimum funding and falling on a weekend unfortunately does not give the plan sponsor more time for minimum funding purposes, regardless of tax return due rules.

Why on earth would she do this - create an RMD situation when none exists? Unless she wants/needs only some of her 401(k) funds but her plan only has a (total) lump sum option.

Your threshold for availability on BRFs is the nondiscriminatory classification safe harbor percentage, which is usually fairly low unless you have high HCE concentration, so unless there is a lot of turnover and new entrants compared to existing participants at grandfathered match, this shouldn't be an issue for a while. http://www.asppa.org/Portals/2/PDFs/2015AnnualHandouts/WS62 - Benefits, Rights and Features Identifying, Testing and Amending.pdf

Bird is definitely chirping the right tune. The only time you can offset ("claw back") the benefit is when the embezzlement was against the plan (not the employer). Restitution by way of taking a distribution and using to pay off the debt is the best alternative, but 20% will also need to be withheld for taxes. We have seen this happen a couple of times as well. Good luck.

but then you get the 80-120 rule to file as you did the year before

That is my understanding, your denominator just needs to be a safe harbor definition amount, whether 3401(a), W-2 or 415(c) with or without permissible exclusions.

So you apply the max match to the max comp and put that dollar limit in the payroll program. This was a simple issue that two parties (payroll and TPA) dropped the ball on (unless TPA does not do testing). Sorry to be harsh, but it's laziness followed by finger pointing and buck passing, has been going on in our industry too long. Common, we're better than this - BG150 says so! It's not like we're the government!

That is my understanding as well - contribute by 10/15 to allocate on basis of prior year (and be annual addition for such year), unless some other exception (corrective contribution) applies.

I think the TH rules refer to participant account balances, with certain add-backs, and a suspense account is not a participant account balance, so my interpretation is you ignore - not in numerator or denominator.

Yes, you cannot contribute to a both SIMPLE and a qualified plan for the same tax year.

That is exactly what should have been done had the participant (or plan administrator) known the rules, but barn door was open, the horse got out and ate the flowers, and even though back in the barn now cannot un-eat the flowers.

And what about employees with variable pay? Aside from inhibiting proper administration of plan terms, this is a huge disservice to plan participants to make a TPA and/or CPA's job easier. The plans are for the participants' benefit, not the providers', although it's clear they think otherwise.