Leaderboard

For the cost of just a few pennies per day for each $1,000 that is late, use the payroll date. If you're investigated by the DOL, they now can't question the choice regarding the loss date. Using the pay date eliminates that scrutiny.

First time in 40 years I've ever seen a client do something stupid! :-)

In these set of facts, a RIF occurred but to only approximately 9% of the beginning number of employees. This was a large plan and more than half the terminations that year were "for cause" which was common in this client's industry. As less than 10% of the plan participants were terminated through RIF employer initiation, the IRS agreed no partial termination was deemed to have occurred and therefore no participants were required to be fully vested under partial termination rules.

A client was audited in 2010 time frame with a RIF and we took the position that only those employer-initiated terminees were fully vested and IRS agreed. That may be an outlier, but it never hurts to mention. The other issue was for me not to connect or attribute 3 plan years for several RIFs as there was an episodic but continuous

You can continue to use the document but your old provider is no longer updating it for you for any law changes. You will not be able to use their IRS Opinion letter and your plan may now be considered an individually designed plan that you are responsible for updating for any IRS required changes. Typically your new provider will restate your Plan on to their document for a variety of reasons including not having to read through someone else's document provisions and having reliance on their own Opinion letter.

This process also may have been put in place as another protection against identity fraud, particularly since the Equifax breach. This way the check goes to the employer who sends it to the employee's address that the employer has on file, rather than an address that a fraudster may have requested.

Here's the reg Mike is referencing.

My recollection is that the IRS interprets what constitutes a 410(b)(6)(C) transaction expansively.