CuseFan

yes, absolutely, if cross-testing any part of the plan then everyone must get gateway.

Sorry, my comment was more tongue in cheek slam against the attorneys reaping millions by getting plan participants, individually, tens and hundreds rather than government waste. Clearly that sort of discussion can last us the rest of the year. Or maybe it's all a government conspiracy to fund extraterrestrial research. As they said in Independence Day: You didn't think they actually spent ten thousand dollars for a hammer and thirty thousand for a toilet seat, did you?

It is funny that "new" comparability has been around since 1991. Also, for your testing, don't forget about restructuring. if you can pass rate groups at 70% by cross-testing the owner with the youngest NHCEs and testing the other HCE (spouse I assume because high deferral?) on a contributions basis with the oldest NHCEs, then the ABT% doesn't matter.

So what's the over/under on how long until one of the aggressive excessive fee attorneys brings a class action lawsuit against the government on behalf of tax payers for this failed costly program?

You don't HAVE to cross-test. A new comp formula should allow you to allocate in whatever fashion (that satisfies 401(a)(4))) the employer desires. So you can allocate in a manner that satisfies 401(l) - integrated - and do your testing on contributions rather than cross-test on benefits. Technically, you would have to test, but if your actual allocation was in the same manner as a design based safe harbor, I wouldn't even bother. Say you had a NCPS formula but allocated X% of pay across the board - formula is not safe harbor but your allocation is.

I agree completely, but I also see some questions that have me thinking "seriously"? i know not everyone on here is a benefit professional but I am also a firm believer that if you research your own question and find the answer that you remember/learn more rather than simply asking someone else, again and again. Although some of the crazy issues/questions that come up here are very entertaining, so are these non-benefit crazy discussions - keep 'em coming!

Especially if the form of payment was 50% J&S and the post-death payments should have been halved. I would ask a tax professional rather than a retirement plan professional.

If only people Googled their compliance questions as much we might limit that sort of bothersome minutia and be able to have many more of these discussions!

how can the destruction of disco records be a bad thing?

Exactly.

Agreed. If anyone has worked 500 hours they have become entitled to a contribution without any further requirements and so you are precluded from amending the formula.

Either client got bad advice or the plan was poorly designed or client has selective memory - or possibly a combination of all three. #1 - 2015 is in the books correct and proper as the plan was written, I assume, in which case there is nothing to correct and so #2 and #3 are moot.

re-issue to the estate is the correct action.

I agree w/MoJo, my understanding is that only tax levies other than QDROs. But my understanding is that tax levies can also compel distribution. Also, fiduciary fraud against the plan can trigger a forfeiture of benefits as restitution, but only for the plan. I've had clients who were victims of employee embezzlement who wanted to withhold retirement funds for restitution, but could not do so unilaterally. But as part of plea deal, they could request distribution and then use for restitution. This is a timely discussion given OJ Simpson's pending parole release, with his $5M retirement account in the Screen Actors Guild plan and $100,000+ annual NFL pension as that all relates to the mostly unpaid civil suit settlement owed the Goldmans. http://money.cnn.com/2017/07/20/news/o-j-simpson-retirement-income/index.html

Thanks guys, enjoyed the old time baseball references nearly as much as RBG's Blazing Saddles reference yesterday.

http://www.5500tax.com/voluntary-benefits-form-5500/ I think you're ok (Google is a wonderful thing people). However, in a cafeteria plan - "plan" - I think you answered your own question there. Also, many voluntary benefits you don't want through pre-tax premiums because that makes the benefit taxable.

if the fee is $25/per then it should come out of plan assets/accounts that way. if this is a TPA fee and not recordkeeping, you're doing the same work for someone with a $1000 account as with a $50000 account, at least when it comes to including in testing, do a statement (if applicable). if that is not how the fee is determined, but how it "shakes out", then you need to really drill down into how it's determined or apportioned, what is a fixed base, what is a per participant service, and what, if anything is asset-based. maybe look at how you would charge each plan if it was separate and use that ratio to split fees.

RBG, you made my day!

You can use a third party loan service bureau, such as BPAS MyPlanLoan, to administer loan program that enables terminated participants to continue repaying loans after they leave company - stems leakage, it's a great benefit - as well as potentially allow terminated participants with balances to take (and repay) new loans. This also takes loan administration out of payroll and TPA hands, making leans more automated and efficient - easier for HR/payroll and TPA.

Yes, that is part of the teaching (sic), as well as the pessimistic view that no matter how many years in a row you make 1/2 or 3/4 of a million dollars, that next year it could be slashed to "only" a few hundred thousand a cause a struggle to survive, and finally, of course, professional investment management, because we all know doctors are experts there as well! Sorry, it's cynical Thursday. Employees in for sure, and yes, could count his private practice/self employed service as well, but should be in document.

Yes. However, a fully subsidized unreduced early retirement benefit is most likely in place to get people to actually retire early, so allowing someone to take in-service of such would seem counter-productive.

DB plan (takeover, data issues) requires QJSA notice given prior to NRD, and if election is not made or a written election to defer (no later than RBD) is not made, then benefits are required to commence in the normal form as of the 60th day of the year following the year in which NRD occurs. Person's NRD was 7/1. Takeover data issues delayed calculation of benefit and delivery of QJSA forms until after 7/1. There is no RASD in the plan. Do we prepare QJSA for 9/1 ASD with two month actuarial increase or do a "corrective" QJSA back to 7/1?

Not required yet, but highly encouraged and will be required in the future. it's so easy there's no reason not to do it that way. Top Hat Plan Statement Plan administrators of "top hat" plans can use this web page to electronically file the statement described in section 2520.104-23 of the Department of Labor's regulations. Top hat plans are unfunded or insured pension plans for a select group of management or highly compensated employees. The Department recently published a proposed regulation that would make it mandatory to electronically file the statement. In the interim, plan administrators of top hat plans are encouraged to file plan statements using this electronic system. Plan administrators who use this electronic filing system will have satisfied the filing requirements under the current regulation. To go directly to the statement, click on the link "Proceed to File Your Top Hat Plan Statement" below.

yes, that works

agreed and thanks for the clarification