Message Boards Digest

January 28, 2019

Here are the most recently added topics on the BenefitsLink Message Boards:

Author's photo

CLE401kGuy created a topic in 401(k) Plans

Recognizing Past Service for Purposes of 401(k) Testing

Plan acquired entities with 400 new participants during the course of 2018 -- all hired 2/1/18. Plan is recognizing service from date of hire for the 400 new participants. In 401k testing, I am excluding all those who do not meet statutory eligibility. Do I count the participants I'm recognizing past service for in the non-excludable test? It seems like I would not, because their hire dates with the employer don't meet statutory eligibility regardless of the past service that is being recognized.
Number of replies posted  2 replies      Number of times viewed  33 views      Add Reply

PBI reinvents Death Audit category with launch of CertiDeath

Sponsored by Pension Benefit Information, Inc.
CertiDeath™ eliminates the work, complexity, and uncertainty now associated with identifying deaths, saving companies loads of time spent reviewing obituaries and money lost due to missed or misclassified deaths.
Author's photo

ERISAAPPLE created a topic in Distributions and Loans, Other than QDROs

Taxation of Annuities

Is anybody aware of a publication that has a good discussion of the difference in taxation between annuities in general and the simplified method of taxing annuity payments from a qualified plan under IRC Section 72(d)?
Number of replies posted  0 replies      Number of times viewed  27 views      Add Reply
Author's photo

Gilmore created a topic in 401(k) Plans

Discretionary Match After Plan Year-End

A plan provides for a discretionary match which the plan sponsor may make after the plan year has ended (1,000 hours and last day required). The plan sponsor wants to wait until later in the year to decide whether or not to make the match, let's say after March 15. The plan fails the ADP test, and if match is allocated pro-rata over deferrals, it will most likely fail the ACP test as well. If the match is discretionary, is it possible to allocate the match by reducing the match to the HCEs sufficient to avoid an ACP failure and possible excise tax? I'm not finding anything in the document that indicates one way or the other.
Number of replies posted  0 replies      Number of times viewed  25 views      Add Reply
Author's photo

TPA Bob created a topic in 401(k) Plans

Matching Contribution True-Up by Mistake

Plan document calls for safe harbor matching contribution to be determined on a payroll-by-payroll basis (with no true-up). A true-up was calculated for 2016 and 2017 and deposited by the Plan Sponsor. How do we correct? We are thinking of forfeiting the excess amount due to true-up with earnings and file under EPCRS. Any way to avoid that?
Number of replies posted  0 replies      Number of times viewed  18 views      Add Reply
Author's photo

BTG created a topic in Correction of Plan Defects

Buyer Contributed to Seller's Plan after Asset Sale

Company A acquired Company B in an asset sale in late 2018. Company B maintained a 401(k) plan that was not assumed by Company A as part of the sale. Nonetheless, following the closing date, Company A has continued to make contributions (both employer contributions and elective deferrals) to Company B's plan, which were accepted by the TPA. It seems to me that this scenario results in countless technical violations, but little (if any) harm to participants, and that the least problematic solution would be for Company A to assume sponsorship of the plan, retroactive to the date of closing. I'm aware that such an approach should involve a VCP application but I doubt the parties will be interested in the time and expense that would be involved. Any problems with that proposed solution (aside from the risk associated with not going through VCP) that I'm missing? Alternatively, are there cleaner solutions?
Number of replies posted  1 reply      Number of times viewed  30 views      Add Reply
Author's photo

52626 created a topic in 401(k) Plans

Catch Up Contributions Mistakenly Not Made

Participant enrolled and deferrals withheld and timely deposited. In September the employee reached $18,500. Payroll stopped his deferral. The participant was over 50. Due to a payroll glitch, the catch up contributions were not withheld. In January the employer realized the error. They have corrected the payroll issue. Any action required by the employer for these "missed" deferrals? The employer does not make a match contribution.
Number of replies posted  3 replies      Number of times viewed  47 views      Add Reply
Author's photo

EPCRSGuru created a topic in Defined Benefit Plans, Including Cash Balance

Correction of 415 Violations by Making In-Service Distributions

I work for a large employer with a DB plan that bases benefits on up to 45 years of service. Our participants seem to love their jobs too much to retire, so we have several active participants (who are NOT highly-paid) who are over 70-1/2, continuing to work full-time, and whose accrued benefits have exceeded section 415 limits. We've been advised by our attorneys that the appropriate way to handle this is to begin periodic payments, even though the participants continue to work. This is a new concept for me. I think I missed a regulation change somewhere. With previous employers our practice was to stop accruals as necessary and make distributions from a non-qualified plan in order to make the participants whole. Could someone provide a little history on this and direct me to the appropriate regs?
Number of replies posted  3 replies      Number of times viewed  33 views      Add Reply, Inc.
1298 Minnesota Avenue, Suite H
Winter Park, Florida 32789
(407) 644-4146

Lois Baker, J.D., President
David Rhett Baker, J.D., Editor and Publisher
Holly Horton, Business Manager

Copyright 2019, Inc. All materials contained in this mailing are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of, Inc., or in the case of third party materials, the owner of those materials. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notices from copies of the content.

Links to web sites other than and are offered as a service to our readers; we were not involved in their production and are not responsible for their content.

Unsubscribe | Privacy Policy