Leaderboard

Walter, What is the "problem"? A possible top heavy contribution to newly eligibles after 1/1/2020? The solve is to convince them to leave the Plan alone for 2020 and discuss next year. If they are diehard to amend the plan. So be it, let them know a top heavy is required and ADP testing is needed. You're not in a horrible spot. You just have some explaining to do.

No, I don't think they do. I don't see how this can possibly be considered a plan asset. Very different from a plan where there is an "ERISA account" - the 5bps is being paid directly to the TPA by Investment Company X. Austin, would you feel differently if the engagement letter had clearly specified that any Revenue Sharing in excess of TPA fees charged to the Plan Sponsor would be kept by the TPA? If the Plan Fiduciary has done due diligence, and determined (rightly or wrongly) that the overall investment portfolio, expense ratio for the investment company, etc. is acceptable, then why should extra TPA profit be a problem? Granted that this is a bizarre combination of circumstances. You can see why the initial discussion went round and round...not sure there is any perfect answer (other than to avoid this situation in the first place).

While I can imagine a few circumstances where you are wrong, in the vast majority of cases I agree with you.

It is a horrible descriptor. Clients (and some of their advisors) think of it ("solo") as meaning the plan somehow contains pixie dust which allows a single participant (and spouse) plan to accept deferrals or employer contributions TO THE EXCLUSION of everybody else that a regular ("not solo") plan would otherwise cover. We (the collective choir I'm currently preaching to, of which you are of course a member) understand that solo is meant to be applied AFTER it is confirmed that only said single participant (and spouse) satisfy statutory eligibility after consideration of all aggregation rules. Such is our burden to bear.

If it was forfeited it doesn't exist and I don't know of any state where property that no longer exists can be classified as marital property. It is no different from the loss of equity in real property caused by a drop in market value - it's just gone. Unless the forfeiture was due to your affirmative and purposeful dissipation of the funds in the account (for the purposes of depriving your wife of her share of your marital assets), in which event the court could treat it as extant, then there is no rational argument she can make against assets that no longer exist.

You are right that it should not be counted in your current value of your retirement account. However, that doesn't mean that the judge won't give the spouse more than you think he/she should get. But it shouldn't be in the starting numbers which are then subject to division.

Belgarath, I agree. I don't even think a service agreement has to state that TPA will keep excess revenue sharing, unless the revenue sharing is being payed to the TPA for the stated purpose of paying for fees. In my situation, the plan has actually paid less than it had originally contracted for since the TPA has reduced its fees by revenue received from the investment company.

This subject does make for interesting conversation, doesn't it? (Maybe only interesting to us ERISA geeks...) And it brings up some issues that weren't discussed - suppose the Revenue Sharing is paid directly to the TPA. Not to an "ERISA account" in the plan. If, as asserted above this excess is a "Plan Asset", the moment the Revenue Sharing exceeds the TPA fees, does this make the TPA a Fiduciary? Is the TPA then responsible for investing the assets under Fiduciary standards? If this has gone on for several years, does the TPA then owe interest to all participants for those years? Etc., etc. I'm inclined towards Austin's point of view - I fail to see that this is a Plan asset. But please, keep these comments coming! I'm going to pass them on to the folks who were involved in the original discussion.

1) Find out from the actuary what information is missing and have the client track it down, even if it means crawling around in the attic opening old boxes. 2) Find a hungrier actuary (not me). 3) In the case of a frozen plan there is usually a very wide margin between minimum required and maximum deductible. Ask the (an?) actuary if they assume the highest benefits for NHCE's and lowest benefits for HCE's [all based on the history the client can find] whether the prior contributions satisfy minimum fundiing and don't violate maxium deductible rules. If so, have the client elect to eliminate all balances and let the actuary go forward. 4) Tell the client that because your actuary didn't publish enough information each year for another actuary to duplicate the work performed and you weren't diligent enough to understand what was necessary your firm will be paying the (a?) new actuary to guide the cleanup. Good luck.

Be careful about a plan or employer official getting involved in personal matters of employees, especially in giving tax advice. The specific requirements for plan disclosure about taxes, such as the rollover notice, are firmly established. Don’t go beyond them. I will let others address the substance of your question. That horse has been beaten to death long ago, notwithstanding never-ending attempts to keep riding it.

Just a few threads you might start with: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/50562-illegal-alien-with-false-identification-in-profit-sharing-plan/ http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/25476-incorrect-social-secutity-number/ http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/53094-illegal-alien-issue/ But this post is probably your best answer: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/50562-illegal-alien-with-false-identification-in-profit-sharing-plan/?p=218319

I'd ask the DOL agent to: (a) put it in writing, and (b) provide citations to support the position Then I'd ignore the DOL agent anyway.

jkolsen You seem to have too much emotion involved to be able to understand the responses. Step back and take a deep breath. Illegal alien status is irrelevant. That you think the person should be deported is irrelevant. When telling us what a Plan Document states, it is usually best to cite the actual wording used rather than use your interpretation or paraphrasing. As other posters have tried to point out, it is very unlikely that your plan mentions illegal aliens. Your definition of "illegal aliens" is irrelevant. As also pointed out, if the Plan has the wording that you say that it has, your plan has bigger problems that should be of greater concern than this "illegal alien". Focusing on this alleged "illegal alien" to the possible detrement of the entire plan does not seem rational. Neither you nor the Plan are the determiners of what constitutes an "illegal alien". The Plan is concerned about eligible participants.