CuseFan

From the DB Answer Book - cites are the Heinz case, Rev Proc 2005-23, and 1.411(d)-3(a)(3). Defined Benefit Answer Book - Donovan, Young, and Alsguth,Q 30:55,May an employer change the types of employment covered by a suspension of benefits provision after an employee has already returned to work? Last Updated: 12/2017 No. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Central Laborers' Pension Fund v. Heinz [124 S. Ct. 2230 (2004)] that an amendment to the plan's suspension of benefit rules that applied to a retiree's benefits earned before the amendment's adoption was subject to the anti-cutback limitations of Code Section 411(d)(6). In response to this ruling, the IRS issued Revenue Procedure 2005-23 (and extended the date required to comply in Revenue Procedure 2005-76) to limit the effect of the Supreme Court ruling to a prospective basis. This revenue procedure contains guidelines for those companies who had plans with provisions in conflict with the Heinz decision to correct their defects. [ Rev. Proc. 2005-23, 2005-18 I.R.B. 991] This has also been added to the regulations in proposed form by Proposed Treasury Regulations Section 1.411(d)-3(a)(3).

if you do the allocation in that fashion, declare those amounts as the individual allocations, and then general test on contributions with permitted disparity, does that get you where you need to be? or if permitted disparity must be imputed at the SSWB that makes it not work?

Clearly that is an abusive application of an otherwise permissible design, one which IRS would be all over. If the plan had eligibility requirements so that it wasn't exclusively short-term, low-paid NHCEs benefiting, that's a little different. Using short-term low-paid NHCEs to pass testing itself is not an abusive practice targeted by IRS, but it's the exclusion of longer service, higher paid NHCEs, whether from coverage or participation, that IRS looks to shut down.

Did company A have a suspension of benefits provision? If it did not, then you cannot add one to those benefits. An SoB can only be added to prospective participants/benefits.

Happy 59 1/2! Last year I hit 55 and a co-worker innocently enough said, "now you're eligible for early retirement", to which i responded, "what're you trying to tell me?"

it could be they are waiting for d-letter but the one owner doesn't want to wait. i think paying that now but paying everyone else later (after d-letter, if that's the case) is probably a BRF issue.

it's contingent on a salary deferral, still think it's a match. i think the only way it's not a match is if the 5% deferral is mandatory (possibly as a condition of employment) - you have to do 5% to be in the plan, can't do anything less.

Agree w/MoJo, can't violate plan because CBA says something different, but should amend plan to comply with CBA to avoid labor issue. Need to check how far back the difference goes and how plan has been administered - to determine if a simple amendment now will be sufficient or maybe an EPCRS filing is warranted.

does it matter? the 3% SH satisfies your TH minimum and is fully vested.

Make no mistake, DOL puts the onus on maintaining complete and accurate records on the employer, and any situation like this where the employer is lacking records must be resolved in the participant's favor, and court cases have affirmed.

I pay NYS SDI from my wages and it is not pre-tax in any fashion, except it could be deducted as a SALT on my Federal tax return, before tax reform that is!

i would agree - these expenses are related to the event (the funeral) but not directly associated therewith.

Voluntary after-tax would be subject to ACP testing, so unless they had substantial rank and file after-tax participation it wouldn't work for them. This is a great strategy for solo/owner-only/HCE-only plans and possibly very large corporate plans that are already easily passing ACP testing.

In a multiemployer plan, there is no "employer" per se. There is the plan sponsor, which is a union, and there are contributing employers, which could have differing fiscal years which I believe are irrelevant to the required adoption due date to establish a new plan. What is the sponsoring union's fiscal year? That is the relevant date I believe. if calendar, then i think you have a 2018 calendar year plan and can't go back to 2017.

But if they were plan to plan transfers, (1) document would also need to allow and (2) more disturbingly, those transfers would have protected forms of payment - i.e., QJSA requirements.

1. no, you are correct that SoB only applies to actives 2. yes, w/o RASD, you must provide actuarial increase to the NRB

As an ERPA I represented a client on recent (3Q/4Q 2017) 401(k) plan audit, sent in a 2848 co-executed with the client, but do not remember having to provide my SS# for any reason.

disability does not automatically trigger full vesting - even if still employed at the time - depends on terms of the plan. so if above statement was made by someone in general and not specific to your plan, it may not apply to your situation regardless. i agree that if you have a SSDI award effective prior to your distribution that you should be able to avoid the 10% premature distribution penalty tax.

Yes, I think XYZ must adopt the ABC plan to include earnings from XYZ, unless the ABC plan's provisions automatically include all employers/employees of the control group.

Bait and switch Great news! The price of a Mercedes has been slashed. Oh, and by the way, those Chevys that you all drive now will cost you five times as much.

and what is the "plan" that failed coverage - is it non-elective, 401(k) and/or 401(m)?

Ditto, and I've seen designs where babies (literally) were employees because they were paid for being in promotional adds for the company - although in those instances it was to have more non-benefiting HCEs to help pass testing rather than increase family benefits, but it could work that way too. As long as they get a W-2, actually work and the pay is reasonable (and they follow child labor laws), it's all good man.

You can allow a change if you have a new annuity starting date that is based on the employee's actual retirement post commencement of RMDs, but the plan needs to allow for new ASD.

Plans can mandate commencement of benefits upon the attainment of NRA. However, if that's not already in the plan, so a participant has the ability to defer commencement until actual retirement or possibly his/her RBD, I'm not sure if you can add that now, it may be considered a cutback, especially if actuarial increases are provided post-NRA.

Yeah, I thought of that after, was a little too quick on the submit button. Looked to see if there was any owner-only plan exception/exemption from TH rules but didn't find any.