Leaderboard

There's nothing that says MEPs have to be huge plans. You can have tiny MEPs - we have several in our office. The basic things you need to know about a MEP are: Coverage, non-discrimination and top heavy are done as if they were separate plans Service is combined for eligibility and vesting On the 5500-SF, check the box for multiple employer plan and see the instructions for the required attachment

Personally, I would never want to go down this rabbit hole. We do qualified plan administration, not investment counseling. Could you do something like this? I'm certain you could. I just wouldn't want to - at least up front, I can't see that it would add enough "value" to our services (by the time you have disclosed and CYA to the nth degree) to ever make it worth it. If you do, have fun!

How to Protect Your IRA from Creditors | Retirement Watch

You say this happened due to purchases and you just found out about the other plan, so I assume you hopefully have time under the transition rules to be able to get this sorted out. Plan R has a large contingent of "per diem" class of employees - those called in to work on a day to day basis. I would do a deeper dig on that population with respect to hours history. If that much of their population is in this class, it might be that the majority have never worked more than 1000 hours in a year and may be statutorily excluded. If this group predominantly works 1000+ hours per year, then this classification itself may be problematic and was a smokescreen attempt to exclude part-time employees. Even if not the previous intent, it's like salaried employees are in, hourly employees are out, and that is just fine until you fail coverage because hourlies far out number salaried. If you can't find enough statutory exclusions amongst the per diem (we just need 11,780 votes, er, exclusions) then I would run average benefits as the next step and progress from there.

If you go into the thread I linked @RatherBeGolfing explains the whole story. The short version is that starting in 2020 the instructions for the 5500-EZ say that a partner includes a 2% S-corp shareholder, as defined in IRC 1372(b), and 1372(b) references 318.

Who got the PPP money and who is reimbursing whom for what? Maybe it's me but this is confusing.

This is a pretty common situation, and Lou's advice is usually the simplest approach for a small add-on entity like this. Yeah, technically it's a MEP, but it's not much of a MEP and not a big deal to administer. The biggest challenge I've run into with 4k plan recordkeepers is handling two different payroll sources, they don't like to do that. Using a common paymaster is one way to address it, and depending how your owner/client is being paid from each entity, potential payroll tax savings is possible. They should discuss the common paymaster with their CPA if they want to look into it, there are ownership requirements (I think 50% but been years since I dealt with this).

The plan might also allow you to designate a non-spouse as your beneficiary.

Sometimes this site provides bonus features not advertised!

Sorry - but I'm going to get on my soapbox on this one. First, if *anyone* suggests that hiring another fiduciary relieves other fiduciaries of liability, RUN. Don't walk. Don't ask questions. Just get the heck out of there. The "co-fiduciary" liability thing is real, and the duty to monitor other fiduciaries is another fiduciary obligation that most plan sponsor centered fiduciaries do not understand. While a 3(38) is an "exception" to some extent that does relieve other fiduciaries of the liability for investment decision making, those fiduciaries still have the obligation of prudently hiring, prudently monitoring, and prudently firing when appropriate. That, in my (attorney-0litigious) mind means understanding their process, and ensuring they are following that process, and determining that that process is an appropriate process for their plan and it's participants/beneficiaries. I would suggest entering into the agreement the OP posited itself would be a breach of their fiduciary duties. It does, as Bill suggest, appear at least partially like it is a 3(21) agreement. Lots of questions about the agreement. Even more questions about the plan sponsor/fiduciaries to truly understand what they are getting into.... OK. Soapbox put away (for now).

The very broad and general answer to your very broad and general questions is negative. Circumstances matter, because the plan administrator is required to act prudently under the circumstances in following the terms of plan documents and the law. Treating your example, and adding details and focus relating to the joint and survivor annuity (J&S) rules applicable to most private pension plans, if the participant were on record with the plan as married, and then got divorced, and then retired and applied for benefits without advising the plan administrator of the divorce (and the plan administrator having no other notice or knowledge of the divorce), the plan administrator would likely process the benefit as though the particpant were married and comply with the applicable J&S rules. That means that the apparent spouse would be givien information about the survivior annuity benefit and the participant would receive that benefit (with the apparent spouse as contingent annuitant) unless the apparent spouse consented to a different form of benefit. The plan administrator would not question the marital status. But that is not the end of it. By not revealing actual marital status when that status is matierial to the benefit, the participant and former spouse are committing fraud, which, if discovered, would result in consequences too varied and complicated for speculation. If the participant stated that the participant were no longer married, the plan administrator would probably ask for proof (not automatically search itself), because the spouse of a participant has rights that the plan administrator is charged with protecting. Your question is redolent of nefariousness. Or are you simply concerned with specific requirements of fiduciary responsibility?

All seems odd, especially the first one. The others may just be in there to see if you would catch it. Back to item 1, any chance they gave you a 3(21) contract in error?

Yes. All one-participant plans of the employer are considered together to determine if the $250,000 limit is reached.

The issue of unauthorized practice of law has been "settled" (much to the dismay of bar associations) so I'm not aware of the requirement that an attorney create the document for any provider. I looked into doing a doc for a client from FTW a few years ago, and I don't recall seeing anything that would prohibit it (but I am an attorney - but they didn't know that at the time). In this day and age, most providers provide a document - as do most TPAs. Not sure why they wouldn't (it can be a source of revenue if they charge for restatements and amendments). Where I work, you get the first one free at transition to us, and then pay for amendments and restatements thereafter. We use a heavily modified Relius document (it's really our own as it's been significantly customized). Every other provider I've worked for had a document and preferred clients use it - to make ops run more smoothly (knowing the document, where to find provisions/answers when necessary)/