Any issues with a new plan starting deferrals on June 1 with a plan effective date of 1/1? Someone here seems to remember someone opining on why NOT to do this, but we cannot figure out why.

"ASK THE AUTHOR" Personalized help for all of your tough 5500 questions in 4 business hours from noted author and speaker S. Derrin Watson, J.D. Including any supporting schedules: 8955-SSA,1099-R, 5330 and more). Sign up or email sales@ERISApedia.com .

Participant terminated employment on 12/31/17 and immediately rolled her plan account to IRA. Participant is entitled to a profit-sharing contribution for 2017. Employer is ready to make the profit-sharing contribution but no longer has an account in which to deposit participant's allocated portion. Should employer open an account to hold participant's contribution and ask participant to fill out new paperwork requesting a rollover? Is there a simpler alternative?

Quick question about the Plan Characteristic code 2A for DC Pension Features. If the plan has an integrated allocation, would you list 2A as a characteristic code on the 5500? The description seems to suggest that you would since the allocation method provides for an additional rate on comp above the TWB threshold.

A participant is using hardship distribution money towards the purchase of principal residence. The problem here is, he won't own the principal residence, his girlfriend will. I have approved things like this before where it is to prevent eviction or foreclosure, where it's easy to establish that the person is in fact living somewhere. But this is a new twist. The distribution is about $25,000. Thoughts?

If a recordkeeper's compensation includes 'revenue sharing,' 12b-1 fees, shareholder-service fees, or other compensation from investment funds, a sponsor/fiduciary's informed approval depends on complete and accurate information about the compensation the recordkeeper receives from the investment funds. Does anyone use a CPA firm or other means to test the accuracy of a recordkeeper's reporting or disclosures about compensation from investment funds?

I took out a 401K loan in July 2016 for $3,800 to pay my past due mortgage since my employer was having trouble paying payroll. I agreed in writing to have the money deducted from my payroll for 4 years. I received a 1099-R from Transamerica this year for 2017. I questioned Transamerica and they told me that I received the 1099-R because my employer had defaulted on loan. My employer has been taking money out of my check every week for 401K loan pay $19.92 as well as my 401K $29.76 that I'm paying into for my retirement. My employer has not paid anything on my 401K loan. I contend that my employer owes me $19.92 for every check since Aug 2016 but they're still taking money out. The only difference is that I have not received an ADP payroll check in a couple months, just a paper check with no additional information. I have asked and I am still waiting on an answer. I have all my checks. What are your thoughts?

For top heavy account balance determination in a DC plan, are unvested amounts that are forfeited included when adding back distributions for participants who terminated during the year? For example, a participant with a total account balance of $10K, of which $9K is vested, terminates during 2017 and takes a distribution during 2017. Would you add back $10K or $9K? the ERISA Outline Book gives an example that says, "the former employee's account balancemust be included in the top heavy ratio" [my emphasis added]. I can't seem to find anything definitive in the regulations. Logically, it seems like one must add back what would have been the full value of the account (unvested portion included) because that's the amount you would include for someone who wasn't terminated.

For many years, Client has sponsored a volume submitter SH plan with an Enhanced Match and discretionary integrated PS formula. The SH notice was timely prepared and distributed for 2017 by December 1, 2016. Client became unhappy with TPA, fired them for 2017, and hired its Payroll service provider to do admin, effective December 29, 2017. Payroll Service restated the Plan and changed it to a 3% SH Nonelective formula and changed the PS formula as well, and claims it's for the 2017 plan year. Client didn't notice the changes in the two formulas until just now, but discontinuing the SH match without Notice and amending the Plan mid year 2017 is clearly unacceptable. What to do next? Does the former volume submitter Safe Harbor match plan with the integrated formula control for 2017, or could there be a viable argument to use the 3% Nonelective plan with the comp to comp PS allocation formula?

A safe harbor plan is top heavy. The plan has a New Comp. The employer wants to exclude 3 Non-Key employees from receiving a Profit Sharing contribution allocation. These Non-Key Employees are HCEs who are excluded from receiving the Safe Harbor Non-Elective. Can they be excluded from receiving the 3% Top Heavy/Minimum Gateway OR do they have to receive a funding?

Employer was given the calculation for employer SHM contribution for 2017. They contributed about 2X as much to participants' individual accounts and want the money returned. The fundholder told them they could have the excess returned as a "mistake of fact" and send the employer the proper form to be completed. I would not consider this a "mistake of fact" solely on the basis that the funds have already been allocated to the participants. I would like to advise them to keep the money in the plan, use the same amount for 2018 SHM that was used for 2017 and allocated the difference as an employer profit sharing contribution. The total employer contribution (PS and SHM) is within the 25% limitation. Thoughts??

Doctor and Lawyer are married and have a child under age 21. Doctor (our client) has 401(k) plan. We are inquiring as to the spouse lawyer as to whether he maintains a plan (our first year admin). Disregarding the child, they would not be considered a controlled group as they meet the 4-part CG exception and they are not in a community property state. But my read is that the child trumps all this and does cause them to be a controlled group regardless of the fact that they are not in a community property state. Comments? Thanks Tom