Leaderboard

Option 1: If the company is a partnership, make mom a partner. Option 2: Get legally married to mom. Option 3: Get a bond. I will let you decide which of these you like the best

Which is saying that you don't get a new EIN for the plan; it is the SAME plan (thus, same EIN) but just a new sponsor.

Example 3 answers my questions. There are two policies. One is employer paid and one is employee paid. Both plans are carried directly by the employer and the the employer has reporting requirements. Imputed income applies for amounts over $50,000.

This, perhaps? https://www.erisa.com/revenue-procedure-93-42/

Not a lawyer here just a CPA who does ESOP TPA work. Depending on what they are asking for that is from back in the day it can still be relevant. I mean the purchase of the stock and loan agreement might have been signed 10 years ago. But if it was a 20 year loan those documents will still be driving how shares will be released today. In those kinds of situations I don't see how you will win a fight to withhold the documents.

I haven't had any situations where we thought the DOL asked for something that was inappropriate. I have had a situation where we didn't have some of the items on the list because we needed to get them from a prior service provider who was uncooperative. The investigator's response was no problem, I'll send them a subpoena. Based on my conversations with several DOL investigators, if they don't get something they feel they need, it's fairly easy for them to get a subpoena issued. I organize the requested information they request like Alan suggests. The investigators have always said they appreciate it. Several of them also said it isn't uncommon for them to show up at the appointment time and the plan sponsor has made no effort to gather any of the requested information.

1. The date the articles were adopted is not relevant to the statute of limitations. 2. You can start by asserting that the engagement letter is privileged. In general, the IDRs should be treated the same as subpoenas, the responses should be numbered by page, and appropriate privileges should be asserted. If you are not a litigator, you should team up with a litigator for the responses.

Yes, the deadline to sign a pre-approved cash balance plan document, assuming the plan will fit into it, is April 30, 2020.

Correct. But if plan is a CBP and now eligible for pre-approved document, you will probably want to restate and, if not an adoption w/o modification, submit for a D-letter.

I don't believe individually designed plans are permitted to submit for a D letters anymore, except on the original document and termination. The old cycle system is no longer.

What Larry described is not the way I typically see it. Most of the firms in our area, and the local ERISA attorneys, still charge on an "as needed" basis. That means there is a fee to restate the document, or amend the document, whenever a restatement or amendment is required. The advantage is that you are only paying for the service when necessary. The disadvantage is that you have a relatively large legal bill every 5 to 6 years. Larry - under your structure, what if the client leaves you after 5 years of advanced payments? Do they get that back, or is that considered "support"?