Leaderboard

Remember that this is (or should be) a negotiated settlement, so IRS will likely come in initially at the high end and the sponsor or its representative should be prepared (with evidence/facts, not simply narrative - we didn't know, thought TPA handled it all) to negotiate. If you can get half-way (or close) between initial IRS amount and the VCP sanction, I think that is a reasonably favorable outcome unless truly extenuating circumstances justify an even lower sanction. Good luck.

Although it won't help for what was done in the past, government agency requests of the kind nancy describes are another reason plan administrators might consider the new electronic disclosure opportunities, including with employees who become former employees. The computers make lots of records.

Yes.

Based on this I would agree with your interpretation. DFVCP is probably not required and an amended filing should suffice.

I think the DOL has taken that position when an EZ was filed instead of a 5500/SF, but I dont think the same applies to SF rather than 5500. 2019 SF Instructions

I pretty much agree with ESOP guy. Assuming it's a small plan, you don't get to say all assets are eligible unless they are held by a bank, B-D, etc. and have a readily determinable FMV. So, this is certainly held in a brokerage account, but trading is suspended (Altaba Inc is the former Yahoo, right?) so no FMV to read off of a statement. Sigh...if I can get someone, anyone, e.g. the broker, to give some kind of value that is not totally unreasonable, I'm going to let the client tell me that that is indeed FMV (if the facts are as understood, basically a small part of the assets...it helps if I know that no one is getting a distribution based on the value since that will self-adjust when and if it is liquidated or otherwise closed out)...and take my chances, or more accurately, let them take their chances after discussing it. Sorry to all the sticklers out there.

Let's be clear here you don't have to hire an appraiser for this. The trustee and Plan Administrator have a fiduciary duty to come up with a good FMV. If you don't use an appraiser you have to mark that question on the 5500 saying it isn't traded and hasn't been appraised. They better do a good job of documenting their method of coming up with that value in case it gets questioned. Although it sounds like this might not be a material asset at this point. If this plan isn't audited you have to look into if this still allows you to not audit the plan. I do very few plans with <100 participants in it so I forget how that works but I am thinking that this could be an issue here but willing to be told I am wrong. But the audit safe harbor rules are based on all the assets and data is coming from sources that can be trusted and know you have an assets that isn't being held at one of those type of places. Like I said it is outside my wheelhouse but check the audit requirements. If the plan is audited I would make sure what method you use they can live with it. But the legal requirement is to show the FMV. If the trustee thinks they can do that and be prudent about it so be it. They should know the risks of being wrong but they can come up with a FMV.

You can enter the amount on line 4g of the schedule I if it has not been appraised.

If the plan was not eligible to file SF for those years, because it contained non-eligible assets, then I think the DOL would not recognize those filings.

this 100%!

When I get something this tangentially weird, I have always said "it looks like it might be able to be done. But I'm not an attorney. If you want to do this, you need an ERISA attorney's blessing and guidance. If you won't do that, then we will have to resign." If I don't do that, then I've allowed the client's problem to become my problem.

Be careful. The rules differ for an unpaid leave vs paid leave. For an unpaid leave you only get the hours to prevent a break. For a paid leave you get up to 501 hours for the non-performance of duties. But that gets added to your actual hours and can put you over 1000 hours. In other words, the paid leave is not just to prevent a break-in-service.

There has got to be more to this...

Good grief. Is it a match or NE? I'd give a copy of the notice and state that it was handed out. I wouldn't be too worried about it; can't imagine what they would do. I mean, I guess if you have a SH match and it's not being used then maybe there would be concern. If they called the employees then why do they need proof? Or did the employees say "no?"

Thanks, BG. I regret I am not personally plugged in politically, although I know a few folks who are.

Thanks BG. I'm hearing that this is still under consideration. But nothing official yet.