Leaderboard

Lay it all out and give them the fees required to fix everything. Don't skimp. And then let them make the decision. Help a client that wants help all day long, but don't make a client's problem, your problem.

Semi-educated guess: the Employer is using the vendor to produce and disseminate the SPD and QACA Notices, etc from the payroll files. So, if the vendor doesn't know about these people right away, ie DOH, then the Notice won't be given timely. I worked at a place like that, and we 'required' the plans to have at least monthly entry dates (for immediate on hire eligibility) for just that reason. 'Require' is in quotes because we knew we could not mandate that, it's just that we could not record-keep that plan and uphold our end of the 316 services we provided.

I agree with Bill.

As in $1.99. ?

Personally, with the revelation of more and more issues as you peel back the layers, I'd send the client to ERISA counsel. If they need document/admin/termination support, have the attorney engage you on behalf of the client. This is for the client's protection since there are multiple IRC, ERISA and fiduciary issue in play, best that the client is communicating under attorney-client privilege. Don't forget there are potential claims from employees, not just the agencies. It's also for your protection. IME it's almost impossible for a TPA to get properly compensated for the work/risk/complexity involved here. People expect to pay 5 and 6 figures to lawyers, they expect to pay 3 figures to TPAs.

Correct. We had a long discussion about this a few years ago, and there were plenty of folks on both sides. To make it even more fun, there is support for both arguments in the Code. I posed a question with a similar fact pattern to ASPPA annual's "ask the experts" panel a few years ago (knowing that two of the people on the panel had different opinions), and in the end the answer was that absent specific guidance, either one could be a reasonable approach if you stay consistent.

The same comp limit applies for the nonelective. There is no comp limit on the match. But the most match you can possibly get of course is equal to the SIMPLE IRA max contribution limit ($13,500 / $16,500) because its a dollar for dollar match,

You'll also want to look at 1.401(k)-1(e)(8) which requires that deferrals can only be made from 415(c) compensation. 1.415(c)-2 has the comp definition. 1.415(c)-2(e)(3)(iv) says severance pay is not 415(c) comp.

Severance pay - we ended your job but will pay you $X per month (or whatever) over the next two years - is NEVER compensation for qualified plan purposes. However, and maybe things have changed, I thought to be a bona fide severance plan you could not pay out over more than two years. Seems to be a disconnect there - so maybe (although intended as such) this is not a true severance plan/benefit and these are considered deferred compensation payments rather than severance, in which case the 401(k) plan document should indeed describe the treatment of such.

I think I found the answer: 26 CFR § 1.415(c)-1 - Limitations for defined contribution plans. (B) Date of employer contributions. For purposes of this paragraph (b), employer contributions are not treated as credited to a participant's account for a particular limitation year unless the contributions are actually made to the plan no later than 30 days after the end of the period described in section 404(a)(6) applicable to the taxable year with or within which the particular limitation year ends. If, however, contributions are made by an employer exempt from Federal income tax (including a governmental employer), the contributions must be made to the plan no later than the 15th day of the tenth calendar month following the end of the calendar year or fiscal year (as applicable, depending on the basis on which the employer keeps its books) with or within which the particular limitation year ends. If contributions are made to a plan after the end of the period during which contributions can be made and treated as credited to a participant's account for a particular limitation year, allocations attributable to those contributions are treated as credited to the participant's account for the limitation year during which those contributions are made.