Leaderboard

Hello, I asked my DOL contact awhile back and was told : IRS Notice 2020-23/Covid 19. There is room to type this all out.

I've had success with VCP in a similar situation. The client had prior year ACP testing and a discretionary match. They had one bad year and made no match. The next year they went back to their typical match, and the non-HCE rate for the prior year was 0%. It would have resulted in a refund to all HCEs of about $500,000. We submitted through VCP and asked to retroactively change testing to current year. It was approved. The plan operated in accordance with its terms (and the client certainly didn't like the results) but the IRS allowed the change. It wasn't abusive; kept money in the plan; arose from an unintended set of circumstances; etc. Here, it sounds like there was at least poor communication and an election that the client didn't fully understand. I would give it a shot.

No... The could adopt 3% SH mid year under SECURE. Too late for SH Match though

Yes, definitely met eligibility requirements. Age 21 and performed services in 3 of immediately preceding 5 years.

They might be interested, but they are also screwed! Maybe they have a claim against the prior service provider for incompetence or malfeasance (but very difficult to make stick), but they can't make the top paid group election for a prior year when the plan didn't have that language in it. There's no correction to be made under the Rev Proc since the plan DID operate in accordance with the provisions; the client just doesn't like the results of what he adopted. I'm afraid he is SOL.

Peter, while true (I think in most states probably) for CPAs, the OP is a TPA and not a CPA and this is simply not applicable to him. But when you analyze the pieces discussed in your posting for CPA firms, items one and two are applicable but ONLY if requested in a "reasonable time" after originally being provided. I'm sure that gives plenty of wiggle room. Ask for it within 6 months after they are prepared, probably reasonable time. Ask for it 2 years after prepared, probably not reasonable time and they can charge for it. Slippery slope in between. But item 3 wouldn't apply (even if I was a licensed CPA firm) specifically because we NEVER keep original records of the client and item 4 wouldn't apply because nothing we prepare would ordinarily constitute part of the client's books or records. Therefore, if they want something from their "old TPA", they need to pay. In situations we are in like the OP, we tell the client he needs to pay the reasonable fees for "stuff" we might need from the prior servicer that the client doesn't provide to us. And it's amazing how when you tell the client they have to pay the fee to the old provider, most (if not all) of the "stuff" shows up once they have a financial incentive to look for it!!!!

What's that tag line I've seen floating around? 3 out of 2 people are bad at math.....

No problem; the new numbers for the payments shouldn't be cast until the participant is ready to start repayments. And it can certainly be less than a year.

I disagree with your gut. If you have NOT filed a 5500 since the name change, but the plan is the same plan (it doesn't sound like a new plan so it can't be the first 5500), file your 5558 with the old name. Change it when you file the FIRST 5500 for the new sponsor and indicate the change at that time. I assume you are filing now because you know you will need it even though you have plenty of time right now, and we probably will get automatic extensions soon because of the virus so you may not need it anyway. We are holding off thinking of filing extensions until mid May. We file extension IN BULK for every one of our plans, whether we will use them or not. We ship them all off in a big box.

You can't confirm it because you are looking for something that is not there. The numbers are done for the plan year; doesn't matter when the discretionary match was made.

I don't like dual eligibility safe harbor plans. Just stating my bias up front. With that said, the pitfalls are: 1. will the plan become top heavy? If so, the group eligible to defer but no SHM will need a Top Heavy Minimum. Be prepared at some point to explain this concept to the employer and have them be some form of upset. 2. You have to watch for employee(s) that become immediate HCE's. It's not likely, but it does happen. Of course, this HCE will max out and ADP will have huge failure. Be prepared to explain this and have them be some form of upset. The groups should be not be a big deal to test. Generically speaking, separate testing should solve the questions in your mind. You would have in essence, the safe harbor group and the non safe harbor group. The distain I have for the safe harbor dual eligibility comes from the simplicity of a single entry safe harbor plan vs. the many checks I have to do with the dual eligibility version. Please don't think the dual design is easier to administer than a non safe harbor plan. It is not. Now go sell them on a 6 months single eligibility, participating compensation, safe harbor match plan. Of course the dual eligible plan should cost more than the single. My two cents.

The major thing you need to be aware of with using different eligibility for deferrals and safe harbor match, is that you no longer get your free pass for top heavy. If the plan ever becomes top heavy, you will be subject to the top heavy minimum, even if the only other employer contribution for the year is the safe harbor match. Other than that, there is no problem with having different eligibility requirements for deferral and match. For the ADP test, the employees who have not completed 1 year of service are disaggregated as otherwise excludable, and as long as they are all NHCE that group does not need to be tested. For the other group they satisfy the ADP/ACP test by way of the safe harbor match.

Compensation for the ACP test must be 414(s) compensation. If you are using anything other than a safe harbor definition of compensation, such definition has to be reasonable, and it has to satisfy the compensation ratio test. I have no idea whether a definition that excludes all pay after a given date would be considered "reasonable."

I disagree, but not with your stated opinion but with your assumption. In fact, there appears to be nothing that requires a pro rata calculation as you seem to imply. It appears that whatever is contributed during the 8 weeks will count without any additional justification as to why those numbers should be ok. Thus, if they know their annual contribution will be, say, $100k, it appears they can contribute the full amount of (or any part of) the $100k at this point and take credit for it. Now, we don't have official guidance yet on this, so the recommendation right now is to hold off on making this contribution with the expectation that we will get more specific guidance shortly (hoping within the next week or so, but we shall see...). If no guidance by say, six weeks into the 8 week recovery period, I would go ahead and make the contribution (if they have the cash) of whatever magnitude they can afford without regard to any pro rata calculation. There does not appear to be any downside to that as long as they know they will make the contribution ultimately anyway.