CuseFan

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.

Ouch! KEB, I'm not stating a preference, I am a baseball guy above all else (except maybe college basketball), but simply describing the landscape as I see it.

You have a 60-90 advance NOIT window, so assuming NOIT issued 12/2, you can push PPTD back to 3/3 (double check your day count to be sure), which gives you a few days to pound out the 500 AND the notice of plan benefits to participants (NoPB) - but need to communicate the change in PPTD to participants as well. This may or may not be possible. If you can pull if off, great, but if not, I think you have to start the process over beginning with a new NOIT and PPTD timeline. The PBGC is very stringent on their plan termination rules and timelines.

We have done this for a client because they needed more deduction room. The owners could have also used to load up on CB benefits but interestingly chose not to do so. You'll need to comply with prevailing wage (PW) law, so immediate entry and vesting, and deposits at least quarterly (probably same in DC). The potential downside is you have a defined contribution credit amount (3% per your thoughts) - if someone's PW was less than 3%, you still have to credit 3%. If you're leveraging for cross-tested HCE benefits, now you have to provide gateway. For my client, we have a 5% credit because we needed the deduction room, but some people worked partially on PW projects, but mostly on non-PW, so ended up getting more than they would otherwise. This was not optimum, but was sacrifice worth the added deduction and HUGE cost savings on payroll taxes that would have been due if paid out as current compensation. Whether in a DC or CB, employees view this money as their compensation and you'll see them requesting their distributions the day after they terminate even with the 10% penalty tax. Then, if this is a seasonal industry, the following year/season they are back working and it starts all over. Admin on these arrangements is a bit more involved than your standard CBP. Good luck.

Funny! Gambling, including fantasy leagues and contests, is why football has replaced baseball as America's pastime (a long time ago).

Depends on what the plan says. If it says the age 62 account balance or actuarial equivalent thereof, then there wouldn't be a subsidy. However, if it specifically allows for commencement of the normal retirement benefit (annuity) unreduced, then you have a subsidy. Assuming your age 62 lump sum is the account balance and not the PV of the unreduced age 62 annuity, the subsidy would only happen for an annuity.

The non-vested benefit would have/should have been forfeited after 5 consecutive one year breaks (but check and confirm plan provisions - always). If re-employed, I believe the employee would have been entitled to the prior two years of service because he did have some nonforfeitable benefit (the employee contribution portion), but that would not change the prior forfeiture as post-break service would not impact vesting on pre-break benefit (again, check your plan language). I don't see how a plan termination would reinstate the forfeited benefit. Also, just because in the plan's database you may still have been carrying the non-vested benefit doesn't mean that it's not forfeited - it is or isn't based on plan terms, not record keeping practices.

It's just the green revolution - touted to save the environment (which it does) - but the real purpose of which is to save the RK some green(backs). Cut and dried. We certainly do all we can to have participants elect paperless as much as allowable, but it's not a negative election. They get paper unless they affirmatively elect otherwise.

Yes, always refer to specific plan language, but I would view the bonus as a separate payroll because it allows for a separate election, and match accordingly.

but cannot rollover the portion that would be an RMD from the plan for the current year.

I must have missed that in Circular 230!

Love the graphics!

Thinking of this in an ESOP context - I don't think the principals can guaranteed the loan, it can only be secured by the stock of the leveraged company, right? So isn't this kind of a parallel situation?