Leaderboard

If you are filing under DFVCP, you lose the benefit of the extension. See question #4 on attached link. https://www.dol.gov/sites/default/files/ebsa/about-ebsa/our-activities/resource-center/faqs/faq-dfvc.pdf

But they told me they were a FIDUCIARY!!! You mean I actually had to read the fine print and maybe look up Awesomefiduciarytrainingforoutofworkrealestateagents.com who issued the fiduciary "certificate"?!

And by the way, me as a TPA, I have procedures in place to identify those mistakes as they happen and help clients correct them. I hardly think that the 316 is going to pony up lost earnings for the client's mistakes.

Anyone who wants to do an ESOP on the extreme cheap has conclusively demonstrated that the decision to have an ESOP is a bad decision. ESOPS are such trouble that the high price tag is a screen against misuse. If you cannot accept the idea of a high price and engagement of competent advisers and service providers, then you are taking serious risk going forward with an ESOP, and not just legal risk.

Well they come in with their marketing pitch about how they will do ALL of this amazing stuff, when what it really comes down to is they will mail out SPD's, which I would be happy to do for a fee. Oh whoops I almost forgot that they will also get you a fidelity bond. What a relief! There's 5 minutes saved every 3 years! And my biggest issue is that every critical problem I have ever seen a 401k plan is not addressed in any way by 316 services: Bad census data Bad vesting Ineligibles participating Payroll processing issues Late deposits Misclassified keys/ownership Controlled group/ASG issues Missing deposits Contributions to the wrong participant Contributions to the wrong source Definition of compensation issues Automatic enrollment issues I could keep going! And they charge a fortune!

Why u mad, bro?

I agree on the 8955-SSA - two signatures if ER<>PA. If you look through DOL EFAST questions 30-33 I think these perhaps imply both signatures may be needed?TAG believes both must sign. EOB, in Chapter 13A, Section III, Part B, 1.d.2)a) "Plan administrator different from plan sponsor. If the plan administrator is not the plan sponsor, then both the plan administrator and the plan sponsor will have to obtain separate signing credentials." Also implying both sign? DOL website on EFAST2, Q31: Do you need a separate registration for the "Employer/Plan Sponsor" and for the "Plan Administrator" (two separate signature lines) if the employer/plan sponsor and the plan administrator are the same person? No, you only need to register one time for both purposes. The credentials that you get can be used for multiple years and on multiple filings. If the same person serves as both the plan sponsor and plan administrator, that person only needs to sign as the plan administrator on the "Plan Administrator" line. Does it directly say both sign if they are different? Not exactly. It's unsaid. So you decide - you don't need both signatures? Or is it just understood to mean both must sign. I am curious to hear what others think.

I wasn't even suggesting a scavenger hunt here. All I was suggesting was that unless it is known for an absolute fact that the effective date in the 1950s was the other date, it would be reasonable to just follow past 5500s and forget about it.

We've never had a problem when we had to file without an audit report and amended when the report was available. But, you made me look it up. The DOL has an faq item dealing with filing without attaching the audit report. www.dol.gov/sites/default/files/ebsa/about-ebsa/our-activities/resource-center/faqs/faq-efast2.pdf The Notice of Rejection mentioned in the ASPPA article Austin linked in his first post is sent by the DOL when a return is rejected as incomplete under ERISA 104(a)(4). 104(a)(5) provides for the 45 day correction period. The article says the letters the DOL sent last year about missing audits were not Notices of Rejection, so they did not start the 45 day clock ticking. From 2560.502c-2(b)

We had a similar situation come up last year. Because of a large loan balance in the prior 12 months that had been paid off, the participant could not borrow what he wanted. The plan allowed two loans. After taking a loan for the maximum, he got on-line and Relius was showing that he could take another loan. I worked through the numbers and sure enough, he was eligible for another loan. It's not logical, but that's how the rules work. Austin, what you are missing is that the $50,000 is reduced by the excess (if any) of the highest outstanding loan balance in the prior 12 months over the current loan balance. When he takes the first $8,616 loan, that changes the adjusted $50,000 limit to $17,232.58 ($50,000-(41,383.71-.8,616.29)). When you subtract the current $8,616 balance from $17,232, he can take another $8,816, IF the plan allows a second loan.

I've had them ask for account balance statements, but never the plan. Someone is probably misreading a checklist.

Remember also if it is decided the plan document doesn't address this situation all plan documents allow the plan administrator to make reasonable nondiscriminatory interpretations of the plan provisions. In this case it sounds like you should make some recommendations to the plan administrator as to what they should and could do. (I agree with others the best decision is immediate entry) After precedent is set I would make sure that decision is documented and followed in the future. There might even be some benefit to making a note so that the next time the two plans are amended or restated the decision actually be added to the plans so it is clear.

For the record, I am saying he is wrong. At least I hope he is, because otherwise I would be forced to use this approach in the right situation and it would be a lot of extra work! I am definitely looking forward to rebuttal arguments, don't get me wrong. I've seen ETA right about a LOT of things before, so my curiosity is piqued...

I'm not sure I could defend that particular calculation either... I'm not saying ETA is wrong, but I would be afraid of that coming back to haunt me later.

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

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