Leaderboard

This sounds right to me. It sounds like you are already aware of this when you said "restrictions would apply," but I'll point out that the deemed reduction only applies if the plan offers a form of benefit which would be subject to the restriction on accelerated benefit payments, such as lump sum. The deemed reduction in the prefunding balance would occur on the day that the actuary certifies the AFTAP.

Correct. Even if they were separate plans (and it's not clear if we are talking about 401(k)s, 403(b)s, or both) all loans under all the plans of the employer (including controlled group/common control/ASG plans) would be aggregated for purposes of the $50,000 limit.

Administrators should not need to contact the lender; the participant providing an executed purchase contract should be sufficient. Repairs required due to unexpected damage are eligible; but, replacing an old roof because of wear & tear isn't.

1) If you can get on a preapproved document, do it. Many large and/or complex employer's can't, though. 2) If you stay with an individually designed document, don't ever restate the last restatement you received your last determ letter on, even if you change law firms or TPA's. Just add amendments, so that any review by IRS, auditor, or a potential acquirer, investor, or lender is confined to the amendments. You can administer the plan from an unsigned, cut-and-paste "working copy" that presents the plan document in a unified way. 3) Keep any discretionary amendments separate from law change amendments. Adopt law change amendments only when required under Required Amendments List, and use IRS models wherever possible. 4) If your lawyer drafts a discretionary amendment and you adopt, there is an implicit statement from the lawyer that the amendment is not in lawyer's opinion disqualifying, unless the lawyer raises an issue, e.g. in cover letter sending amendment. 5) Opinion letters on qualification are generally going to be useful only in mergers and acquisitions and in take-over situations, in both cases often just being really compliance checks and a gateway to VCP, as michaelhughes suggests.

The problem is what happens after the plan is written and the initial DL is received. Who takes responsibility that the document is up to date on a timely basis for all the various regs and legislation that comes along over the life of a plan? Yes pre-approved are the way to go. But this effectively precludes smaller plan sponsors without big legal budgets from using plan provisions that are not in pre-approved plans. For example, what if a small employer wants to have 401(h) accounts in a DB plan? Are there any pre-approved plans that include this language? If not and the plan is amended to add it, does this modification blow reliance on the opinion letter for all of the plan document?

Get out of the Nineties!

The Determination Letter program was eliminated for a reason. VCP is the new answer. and pre-approved plans are what the IRS wants you to use.

How about finding a law firm or lawyer that maintains/sponsors an IDP Volume Submitter. Unlikely that a plan would not "fit." Also, consider the new "qualified" regime in which the IRS will rarely, if ever, "disqualify" a plan for any reason, not the least of which is a document deficiency. At worst, VCP could fix a shortcoming most likely at a fee far less than having a firm "audit" the document, for what that is worth

Are any of the ERISA law firms planning to provide a warranty on their documents? I would think that for most law firms, it would be a more palatable option than having another firm review their documents.

I think it has a limited application. If you use Dewey, Cheatem & Howe for your plan document needs, do you really need Sue, Grabbit & Runne to audit their work? Do you trust DCH to not make mistakes or to stand by their work if one is made? I think most clients would. There are some clients who wants belts and suspenders, so it might appeal to them.

The way it was explained to me by one of the people involved, it would be a third party "document audit" with some sort of report. In order for it to have value, I would assume that the law firm performing the service would have to stand behind their work. The point of establishing a program would be to streamline the process for efficiency and affordability, rather than just dropping off a box of paperwork at your local benefits attorney and asking them to form an opinion as to qualified status. If the fee is reasonable and the law firm backs up their service, Its probably prudent. As to whether there is real value, I'm not sure. I haven't reviewed any of these services myself, I have only had casual conversation with some people who were working on it.

Were the HCE's deferrals done correctly based on the HCE's deferral election?

So if I use the ERISA Attorney Firm of ABC to draft my ERISA document, I'm sure they will be thrilled that we're going to go to firm XYZ to review their work.... I have read these websites and definitely see the market for this but I just don;t see it as a practical business model. Perhaps in the Fortune 500-like market place, but not in the less than 500 life world. That's my theory anyway. As a TPA with relationships with the ABC attorneys I'm certainly not recommending my clients call XYZ (and as far as I know, neither have the ABC attorneys). Some of you I think are the ABC attorneys. What are you doing?

Just curious, is this valuable? (maybe nothing?) Settlor expense? Plan expense? If the sponsor is expected to "renew" with their law firm, and the fee is paid by the plan, is such fee prudent under fiduciary standards? Inquiring minds want to know.

I second this. I know some of the major ERISA law firms have launched or are in the process of launching services to fill the void.

There are attorneys who will review (for a fee of course) a document and give an opinion that the document complies with a Cumulative List - a pseudo determination letter. The key is that there is at least an initial or latest 5-year cycle determination letter secured.

OK. So as I should have guessed from the picture, you're a poet. The cadence and economy of your summation of the rules reminds me of something I read by a German essayist many years ago, whose name I have forgotten. "Man is a mammal with two legs and two convictions, one when things are going well, and the other when going badly."