Leaderboard

I've often thought that we should come up with a well-rounded caveat, and then people could put it in their sigs, or maybe have a link to a page or a message thread that contains its text, etc. "Of course, there are details, some of which might be important to your particular factual situation, which I certainly don't know, and as to which I haven't asked all the questions that one would need to ask in order to ferret out other potentially relevant issues (meaning my comments here and elsewhere on thesde message boards are intended to be helpful information, but you should not and cannot rely upon them as my legal or other professional advice)." (First draft)

I agree with others above that would be better to spell out in the plan documents and SPD that the limit is 100% of what you have after taxes and other deductions (e.g., medical) are taken out, but think with every plan document I've ever reviewed you can get to the common sense interpretation advocated above by others through the plan administrator's authority to interpret the plan document, if you have to.

The 2005 Bankruptcy Act changes provide that funds rolled over to an IRA from an ERISA plan retain their ERISA creditor protection, and that IRA funds resulting from individual contributions to the IRA are protected up to $1 million. That's the basic rule. Of course, there are details.

This then would be a "disclaimer of opinion", not a valid reason for the auditor to withhold or not sign the reports. From the instructions for Form 5500, Schedule H, Line 3a(3), "Check if a disclaimer of opinion was issued. A disclaimer of opinion is issued when the IQPA is unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence on which to base the opinion, and the IQPA concludes that the possible effects on the financial statements of undetected misstatements, if any, could be both material and pervasive." This is why this category originally existed, when the auditor couldn't timely, or ever, obtain all the materials it thought was needed, or prove that there was actual wrong-doing and to what effect it impacted the participants. The limited-scope use of this category has become the default, and most audits are physically performed by junior associates who may not have any experience otherwise. Obviously the reports would be full of warnings and whatever notes the auditors wish to include, and management may also include a rebuttal letter of explanation to the audit report if they so desired. But it is not an excuse not to issue the report, if they are reluctant to do so for reasons not supported by SAS 136, fire them for breach, and hire someone who understands the situation and is willing to work with what you have available.

I prefer "I see nothing, I hear nothing, I know nothing - therefore -caveat emptor."

“Of course, there are details.” An all-purpose caveat and rejoinder. And appropriate.

Even with a perfect allocation of responsibilities between or among the administrators, remember that ERISA § 405(a) imposes some co-fiduciary responsibilities regarding any other fiduciary’s breach. If a fiduciary “has knowledge” of another fiduciary’s breach, the observing fiduciary must “make[] reasonable efforts under the circumstances to remedy the breach.” ERISA § 405(a)(3). In doing so, the observing fiduciary must use no less care, skill, prudence, and diligence than an experienced fiduciary would use.

I believe you can amend the profit sharing allocation mid-year if there is a last day requirement because no one yet has definitely accrued the right to share in the allocation. You will be fine to amend prospectively into 2022 to the grouping method. However, if you have plans with no allocation conditions for PS (I have several), then they will have to be signed prior to 1/1/22 to allow the change. Friendly advice: make sure you know what you are doing in/re cross testing. Just because FT William does the testing, doesn't mean you can just rely on the Pass/Fail results. It takes art and skill, sometimes, to decipher the nuances of the reports. And art and skill to "correct" a failed test to conform to the client's aims. You just don't keep throwing in 1/2 percents until the tests pass...

Maybe. The 3(16) Administrator may be engaged for only some of the general Plan Administrator duties, as long as they are spelled out. We had a 3(16) product where we would do SOME of the 3(16) duties and not be responsible for the others. We added plan language that "OUR FIRM will be considered a 3(16) Plan Administrator as outlined in attached 'NAME OF ADDENDUM'." In the Addendum, it outlined the the items we were responsible for such as signing the 5500; approving distributions, loans and hardships; and a few other things. It was noted that our firm was ONLY responsible for the items on the list and the Plan Sponsor, acting as Plan Administrator would be responsible for other duties of PA (or delegating those duties to another 3(16) administrator) such as distributing required notices, tracking eligibility, etc.

Thanks @Bill Presson. Unfortunately we are the ERISA attorneys. We originally proposed filing an incomplete report with explanation. However, after discussions with a help desk agent at the DOL (take that for what it is worth), they informed us that the only options were to file the auditor's report (completed) or undue the plan as the plan could never be in compliance since an auditors opinion couldn't be produced for earlier years, therefore there was no way to substantiate any numbers in any subsequent 5500s.

I think that it's an (un)intentional back door to a site that acts as a middleman between ARA and candidates (I could be wrong) I sent ASPPA an e-mail about it.