Leaderboard

One of the selling points I've seen with 3(16) Plan Administration services, is that the 3(16) PA will sign and file the 5500, leaving the employer largely uninvolved. In the past, if the PA and the Sponsor were the same, then the 5500 only needed to be signed in the PA spot. If they were different, then two signatures were needed. Is that still the case in the age of e-filing? I couldn't find anything in the instructions. If only on is needed, great! However, if both are needed if PA and Sponsor are different, does the 3(16) administrator still need to get the sponsors signature?

I might be tempted to treat him as a re-hired employee and follow those terms if it isn't directly addressed in the document. I could be wrong but I'm guessing the client has this provision so the transfer from one company to the other is more seamless and that the employee would immediately be eligible but that's just a guess on my part. Also I might look at what is written in the SPD on this situation.

My understanding is that the signature is only needed for the Plan Administrator to file the Form 5500 according a short reading through ERISA and the regulations. But, the 5500 and EFAST instructions (DOL has authority here) seem to state or at least imply that they want both signatures if the Employer and the Plan Administrator are different. My recommendation is to have both sign when the PA and ER are not the same entity, but I am interested in hearing anyone else's conclusions on this.

I'm looking for the all ammo I can get against this 316 nonsense!

I believe the penalty per day for a missing auditor's report is $150 up to a $50,000 maximum. You can file with the auditor's information blank, however my understanding is you subject yourself to the per day penalty. In comparison, the VFCP program is a $10 per day penalty with a $2,000 maximum (extensions not taken into consideration). Depending on when the opinion is ready, it may be more cost effective to not submit at all and go through the late filer program.

It won't Accept the filing, but it is still treated as filed for purposes of late filing penalties, etc.

I find Turbo Tax can explain and justify what their software does rather well. That isn't to say I haven't seen it have an error in its programming. After all they do put out patches so they are correcting something. But by this time in the year you simply aren't the first self employed person to try and have it figure out this deduction. So if I were a betting man I would bet on Turbo Tax being correct and either you have coded something about yourself wrong or you misunderstand. The above explanations are the most likely reasons but give them a call.

As Fiduciary Guidance Counsel says, in establishing any plan on behalf of a local government entity, you always have to check state law to make sure that the entity has the authority to establish a plan. However, if it does, there is no objection to using a 401(a) plan to match contributions to a 457(b) plan. In fact, it makes a lot of sense in the context of a governmental plan to make 457(b) matching contributions to a 401(a) plan. If you had a 401(k) or 403(b) plan, you would typically make the match to the same plan, but only the pretax employee contributions, not the match, would be subject to the 402(g) limits. By contrast, all contributions to a 457(b) plan are subject to the limit of 457(b)(2). Thus, if you made the matching contributions to the 457(b) plan, a participant would be able to contribute less to the 457(b) plan. And the fact that matching contributions kick in only at the 4% level would potentially be an issue for a nongovernmental plan due to Code sections 401(a)(4) and 401(m). However, a governmental plan is not subject to either of those sections.

Somebody has waaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy too much time on their hands.... I would have thought this was a post meant for 169 days from now.

... and some (like myself) who may provide a wealth of non-useful information.

jireh87 - Welcome. The best suggestion I can give you is that you read practically everything that's posted on BenefitsLink (except maybe not when they get into deep details about something about which you have no need or interest to know). This site has a boat load of experts who provide a wealth of useful, documented information.