Leaderboard

I think you can rely on the written opinion of the hospital's ERISA attorney(s) that the docs are or are not employees. Even if wrong, you are shielded from any consequences. Make sure you put into writing that you are relying on such opinion.

the loan failure should have been reported, under VCP of EPCRS 6.07(1) ...As part of VCP the deemed distribution may be reported on Form 1099-R with respect to the affected participant for the year of correction (instead of the year of failure) I think the fee is only $300 under the new rules. so issue the 1099 now and be done with it. now, since the person has paid back the loan there is a basis. this is really not much different than if the 1099 had been issued when it should have been, and then later the person paid it back. I don't see how that is a 'reward'. to do nothing is rewarding the individual by permitting a loan payback time more than what is permitted.

How is plan entry 12/1 with plan's entry dates at quarterly?

Several questions: 1. Does you currently subsidize spousal coverage (so the "surcharge" is simply a decrease in the employer subsidy) or do you offer but not subsidize spousal coverage so the "surcharge" goes in your pocket? 2. Is this across the board or just for spouses who have coverage available through their employer? 3. If you're an ACA large employer do you understand the adverse impact of the cash-in-lieu option on the issue of affordability?

I may be wrong on this, but if someone is being paid $15,000 per month but only earned $90,000 in the lookback year, then they are a non-HCE and they have to be treated as such.

To add to my own comments, if the plan permits the use of all plan assets to pay expenses, not just forfeitures, then I suppose the employer can bite the bullet and allocate the forfeitures this year, but next year, or whenever thereafter there aren't forfeitures available to pay expenses, it can tap participants' accounts to pay the expenses, so eventually the employer does not get hurt by the IRS interpretation which Austin and everyone else legitimately complains about. It would have a PR problem on its hand if it did that, and that alone may be a reason not to do it, but legally it would be perfectly sound.

Your comments on the new definition of fiduciary are quite coherent. Not so much on the fee pre-payment issue. It is a given that the plan can pay reasonable fees if the terms of the plan don't prohibit it. There is no fiduciary risk to the employer whatsoever in electing not to pay the fees itself. But, there is a fiduciary risk in my judgment to pre-pay fees which don't need to be pre-paid unless you can come up with a reason to do so (and that reason can't be to use up forfeitures).

Employee was allowed to participate from day 1, when plan has a 1 YOS requirement. Only one ee (a Non-Highly) was affected. ECPRS Appendix B, Section 2.07 contains the rules for retroactively amending the plan to conform to the operations. In the examples, they indicate that the amendment was submitted for a determination letter. I don't think today I am even permitted to submit my pre-approved document (or an amendment thereto) for a determination letter. So can I do the amendment without submitting for a DL?