Leaderboard

You mean that thing that was cancelled this year? You are probably right and I'm sure thepensionmaven actually meant ASPPA All Access which replaced it. Still I have to wonder if inventing a new abbreviation and the added confusion that comes along with it was worth saving the effort to type "nnual onference." Don't mind me, just grumpy this morning. A plan using the ACP safe harbor is "permitted to" exclude the safe harbor matching contributions when performing the ACP test on voluntary contributions (1.401(m)-2(a)(5)(iv)). Therefore it follows that you are permitted to include them in the test as well.

While I recognize that 1.414(q)-1T, A-3(b) allows any "reasonable" method, IMHO you are playing with fire by taking your interpretation. Good luck convincing an auditor that this is permissible. It isn't reasonable to abuse this discretion to blatantly ignore common sense coverage and nondiscrimination testing rules. I'd strongly recommend that you reconsider this. Good luck!

Check rev proc 2019-19 for how to fix errors relating to excess amounts. You are past the end of the 2-year period for self-correction so this is likely VCP territory.

A participant loan in a participant-directed account is a fully-secured loan for which no one but the participant bears the financial risk of default. I think prime + 1% or 2% is fully supportable as a reasonable rate under those circumstances.

POAs are invalid post death. They only allow the holder to do that which the grantor of the power could do. I would suggest the grantor can't request a distribution post death - so neither can the POA holder. As David said, check the plan for what happens upon death - and see if there is a default beneficiary.

Read IRC 411(a)(10). https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/411 The most common method of doing this is probably to apply the new schedule only to those who become participants after the effective date.

Most plans have a default definition of beneficiary if the participant has not made an election. That's what counts.

Sure. They could have the partnership adopt a plan and then have the member orgs as additional adopting employers.

The tax credit is tied to how many non-HCEs are covered, since this plan covers no NHCEs it is not eligible for the tax credit.

Thanks for your replies. So, if you have an LLC being treated as an S-Corp and there are 3 separate owners (with no spouses or common-law employees) then you have to file the 5500-SF, right? Would they be eligible for the $500 tax credit?

I thought only Simple IRAs had the 25% penalty. Not Simple 401(k)s.

Our provider (FTW) has something similar, although it does not specifically say the "has been made available" part. We say, somewhere in the mountain of papers or emailed docs, that if they want to see the Basic Plan Document, they can download it from our website (which reminds me, I don't think the Cycle 3 doc is there yet...). Included with the BPD is the AA with all answers. I've had clients who were bound and determined to shoot themselves in the foot one way or another, but I don't think I've ever had anyone try to amend a plan on their own (!).

The TPA I am with tries to keep us at 45 plans, simple or not. Stress is minimal. More plans than that is ridiculous and sometimes impossible. My husband was an admin and got fired more than once from a TPA that had him at 100 plus plans -- impossible. I am near retirement and will stick it out but I encourage you to find something that makes you happy. TPAs are piling more work on admins and it's not worth it. Good luck!!

Disregarding the "how many" question, since as RatherBeGolfing points out, it is basically meaningless, and focusing instead on the real question here - should I quit my job? This is not an easy question, and ultimately only you can decide what to do. There are countless posts on this board complaining about the quality of plans sold by payroll companies, and I think it's clear why - those companies tend to be solely focused on sales volume and not interested in providing their employees with the training or resources they need to do proper administration. There are always going to be stressful times of year in this field, no matter who you work for or what you do. In our firm, sales and ongoing administration are separate departments - for admin, the most stressful time of year is October 15. Different people respond differently to stress, and jobs with this sort of annual cycle are not for everyone. That said, having a good team makes all the difference when you know you are all in it together. I would start sending out resumes if I were in your position. If you haven't updated it recently, do it now; with 7 years experience working on plans you probably have a lot to add. I wouldn't suggest leaving your current job until you have something new lined up though.

Its impossible to say "typical" workload to be honest. Depends on the plans and what task support you have. If the plans are complicated enough, maybe you max out at 30-40, if they are simple enough, maybe 130 would doable. It does sound like a troubling situation though. No matter what the typical workload is, if you feel you cant give clients the quality service they should get, its an issue, and it needs to be addressed. I would start looking for a backup plan in case you need to leave though. Remote work isn't as rare as it used to be.

My guess would be ASPPA Annual Conference.

The ASG is treated as a single employer for purposes of 401(a)(26). Since plans may not be aggregated for 401(a)(26), any plan put into place would have to cover at least 40% of the ASG members (or if there are only 2 members, both members).

I agree with David. As a practical matter I would recommend the amendment applies to anyone who enters or is hired after a given date. I would add something like 1/1 makes it easier than say 12/20. I would add get it written in the amendment how rehires are going to be treated. Easiest is to simply apply the vesting schedule that was in effect on their original hire date (date of entry). You do NOT have to do that but it is a pretty easy way to do it. It depends on how big the client is and how often a rehire is. I have several clients with thousands of employees that did a change to a worse vesting schedule and they have a lot of rehiring. This made things pretty easy to track. But unless this is a tiny client that doesn't tend to rehire anyone the rehire question will come up. You might as well get the amendment to spell out what happens now instead of running around trying to interpret what it means regarding rehires.

The SIMPLE money can remain in the IRA accounts established. For under 2 year accounts, I'm pretty sure it's required.

Isn't it potentially a prohibited transaction Covered Service Provide and Plan Fiduciary to take undisclosed fees as the DOL deems the undisclosed fees unreasonable?

The 10% penalty applies to the 2018 unpaid minimum. The 100% penalty can be imposed by the IRS if it isn't cured. If you have another unpaid minimum for 2019 the 10% penalty would apply to that. I'm not aware of any excption that reads "unless the unpaid minimum is because you didn't make the prior year minimum" Here is the code https://corpuslegalis.com/us/code/title26/taxes-on-failure-to-meet-minimum-funding-standards (a) Initial tax If at any time during any taxable year an employer maintains a plan to which section 412 applies, there is hereby imposed for the taxable year a tax equal to— (1) in the case of a single-employer plan, 10 percent of the aggregate unpaid minimum required contributions for all plan years remaining unpaid as of the end of any plan year ending with or within the taxable year, and

The fiduciary loses 404(c) protection. There's nothing to fix except to provide the correct disclosures as soon as possible. And hope the participants aren't feeling litigious.

I feel like it is Déjà vu every time there is a medical conference somewhere. "Yes Dr. Acula, I understand that your brother at Google can make this kind of contribution, but it is not going to work for your plan...."

Just to be picky, I think the applicable term should be "red herring" rather than "smokescreen". A smokescreeen is a deliberate action/phenomenon, designed to conceal or deceive. Some definitions of "red herring" involve deliberate action, but the nuance is that a red herring is a distraction from the subject (leading to misconception) rather than a concealment (misleading to misconception).

No. The 415 regs (and the document) state what is supposed to happen to a 415 excess so that's pretty straightforward. I am curious how after tax money for an owner passed the ACP test. It's pretty rare.

But his beneficiary designation for the plan was for his account in the plan. I think it's irrelevant to other inherited assets. The fact that they are both participants in the plan is a smokescreen.

Maybe I'm missing the point here, but HIS beneficiary designation for his own benefits as a participant in the plan, shouldn't have any effect on the payment of HER benefits, based upon her beneficiary designation and plan provisions. The death benefit from HER Plan account should be distributed according to HER beneficiary designation and the plan provisions.

I have never heard of anything like that. That wouldn't make any sense at all. Why would have to assume someone who is working less that 1000 hours in the current year would work more than 1000 in the next? Expected hours is an "assumption", and therefore needs to be reasonable - that is you as the actuary. Also, keep in mind in the end it doesn't matter what you assumed, it matters what actually happened. If you assume <1000, but he works more than 1000, the NC that you didn't recognize gets shifted to liability in the next year and he still has to pay for the benefit. Maybe amend the plan to freeze the benefit before he earns 1000 hours. Tell him to send you a letter stating he worked less than 1000, the implement a freeze. That way the liability is on him, not you. Also, make sure the plan has a 1000 hour rule. Many of our one-life plans have a 1 hour rule, not a 1000 hour rule.

@JSR_Kris Visa status should not affect your COBRA rights. As a general matter, immigration, visa, SSN, or citizenship status is irrelevant for purposes of health plan eligibility. Eligible employees and their eligible spouses, domestic partners, or children under age 26 in the U.S. can enroll when residing in the U.S. regardless of their immigration, visa, SSN, or citizenship status. None of that changes when you're a qualified beneficiary on COBRA continuation coverage. The COBRA maximum coverage period will be 18 months where the qualifying even is loss of coverage caused by termination of employment. Note that the child will become a COBRA qualified beneficiary upon birth if you are enrolled in COBRA at the time. Full details here: https://www.theabdteam.com/blog/enrolling-new-dependents-and-changing-plan-options-under-cobra/ Treas. Reg. §54.4980B-3: Q-1. Who is a qualified beneficiary? A-1. (a)(1) Except as set forth in paragraphs (c) through (f) of this Q&A-1, a qualified beneficiary is— (i) Any individual who, on the day before a qualifying event, is covered under a group health plan by virtue of being on that day either a covered employee, the spouse of a covered employee, or a dependent child of the covered employee; or (ii) Any child who is born to or placed for adoption with a covered employee during a period of COBRA continuation coverage.

For a loan to a participant to meet an exemption from prohibited-transaction consequences (under both ERISA’s title I and Internal Revenue Code § 4975), the loan must “earn a reasonable rate of interest[.]” 29 C.F.R. § 2550.408b-1(a)(1)(iv). Further, the rule states: “A loan will be considered to bear a reasonable rate of interest if such loan provides the plan with a return commensurate with the interest rates charged by persons in the business of lending money for loans which would be made under similar circumstances.” 29 C.F.R. § 2550.408b-1(a)(1)(iv). The rule includes three examples of facts and circumstances that do not result in a reasonable interest rate. Some fiduciaries adopt a procedure for setting a loan interest rate based on a “prime” interest rate, with an increase of zero, 100, or 200 basis points. This might be based on an IRS employee’s remarks that burden no one, not even the IRS. Without reopening that discussion, here’s my question: Has anyone seen the Employee Benefits Security Administration or the Internal Revenue Service pursue enforcement for a too-low loan interest rate? If so, what was the agency’s explanation about why the rate was too low?

People have been using prime +1 without consequence (that I know of) for years now.

Generally you would need to use the latest normal retirement age under the plan. See the definition of "testing age" in 1.401(a)(4)-12 for more info. Since the DB plan has the earlier NRA, it's going to get messy. You still need to convert the hypothetical pay credit to a benefit accrual at age 62 using the plan's interest crediting rate and definition of actuarial equivalence, but then you will need to normalize that benefit accrual to age 65 using the testing assumptions before you can aggregate it with the EBAR from the DC plan. It will make your life much easier if you can amend the plans to have the same definition of NRA. The DC plan will be easier to amend.