Leaderboard

I've done this many times. Once you adopt the 401(k), the SIMPLE is no longer a good plan. Stop contributions immediately. You can reverse the salary deductions and the employer will have to pay the funds to the employees. The contributions will then become voluntary contributions to an IRA for 2020. Since I assume no one is over the IRA limit yet, you don't have to worry about excess contributions to an IRA which can be fixed using the stated process for excess IRA contributions.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say but I dispute what you did say. I don't believe that an 11-g amendment can be used to conform a plan to a safe harbor allocation - I think you are saying that you could use an 11-g amendment to say "we are changing the allocation formula to integrated at 81% of the TWB." No. An 11-g amendment could be used to increase allocations (that may mimic some kind of formula) to pass the general test (presumably on a contributions basis). (And let's all stop saying "cross-tested" when we mean "general tested.")

Not something I would do. As long as it's disclosed it should be legal from your end. Not sure this would be the case for the advisor, they are much more tightly regulated than TPAs. Is this advisor a registered rep? Or an RIA? Has he looked into this? How would other financial advisors perceive this? Would they want the same, or worse, would they figure you and this advisor are working together such that they would not want to refer business to you? Why should you bill it for him? Why not the other way around? You risk getting "spreadsheeted" and replaced. Clients tend to evaluate fees by running a Quickbooks payee report based on what they paid the TPA in the prior 12 months, without regard to what was paid (a restatement? other amendment? Maybe two years admins based on timing of when the work was done each year)? They don't look at 408(b)(2) disclosures when they have their P&L to tell them. They will see they paid you a lot more than the new guy trying to get their plan admin. My $0.02.

Regarding the employer shared responsibility point made by DDelano, only paid sick leave hours must be included in hours of service. 26 CFR 54.4980H-1(a)(24) (The term hour of service means each hour for which an employee is paid, or entitled to payment, for the performance of duties for the employer; and each hour for which an employee is paid, or entitled to payment by the employer for a period of time during which no duties are performed due to vacation, holiday, illness, incapacity (including disability), layoff, jury duty, military duty or leave of absence (as defined in 29 CFR 2530.200b–2(a)). ) Here, the questioner stipulates that the sick leave is unpaid. So, these unpaid hours would not be counted to determine the employee's full-time status. Under the lookback measurement period, it is sometimes necessary to take unpaid hours into account--but only for special unpaid leaves. Special unpaid leaves are limited to FMLA leave, USERRA leave, and jury duty. This doesn't seem to be an issue in this question.

I believe the employer is correct. If all employees on unpaid leave lose eligibility for coverage, then coverage is also lost for an employee on unpaid sick leave. Here, the group of similarly situated individuals is employees on unpaid leave. So long as all the employees on unpaid leave are treated the same (regardless of whether the unpaid leave is related to a health factor), this provision does not violate HIPAA. In this case, the group of similarly situated individuals is not being established based on a health factor. See 29 CFR Section 2590.702(e)(3)(ii), Example 1.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/2590.702 This is the relevant HIPAA nondiscrimination regulation. Also, remember, if the employer has 50 or more full time and full time equivalent employees, hours for purposes of determining full time employees required to be covered to avoid the employer shared responsibility penalties include hrs on leave for sickness, fmla and other paid leaves of absence.

Chaz is correct. By way of example, I am hired on Jan , have a waiting period of 60 days, and become eligible on March 1. I have been at work since Jan 1, but injure my back on Feb 27 and am in the hospital on March 1. The employer cannot deny my coverage becoming effective Mar 1 because I am not at work due to a health factor. By way of another example, I am hired Jan 1, with an immediate eligibility. Work is closed that day, I cannot report, therefor my coverage will be delayed until the first day that I work, presumable Jan 2. Some actively at work definitions do not meet the HIPPA requirements.

Off the top of my head, I believe the language in the plan is referencing the HIPAA nondiscrimination rules, which I recall prohibit applying an actively at work requirement that has the effect of excluding from coverage an employee who is absent from work by reason of a health status-related factor. I don't have the applicable section of HIPAA handy, but that is where I would start.