Leaderboard

Yes, they would be excluded, unless the plan specifies otherwise. They would be non-excludable for your coverage test if they met the age and service conditions. The plan document should contain a section that describes what happens when an employee moves from an eligible class to an excluded class.

Check the current EPCRS procedures. I believe on the ineligible class you need to refund the deferrals with earnings and transfer any related match an earnings to a suspense account to offset future employer contributions. On the early entry of otherwise eligible employees that can be corrected by amendment to bring them in early (if it meets the requirements in EPCRS) or by correcting like above for ineligible class. I can't recall if this qualifies for Self Correction or VCP, if it is just the early entry and you bring them in by amendment as that is "almost" always available for Self correction with t hat method but the not sure if the excluded class requires VCP.

The PCORI fee is exclusively filed on the second quarter Form 720. I assume they'll update it when we get closer to the July 31 Q2 filing deadline. The Q1 filing just ended on Monday. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i720.pdf Reporting and paying the fee. File Form 720 annually to report and pay the fee on the second quarter Form 720 no later than July 31 of the calendar year immediately following the last day of the policy year or plan year to which the fee applies. Because the rate used to determine the fee varies from year to year, you should determine the fee using the instructions for the second quarter Form 720. If you file Form 720 only to report the fee, don't file Form 720 for the first, third, or fourth quarter of the year. If you file Form 720 to report quarterly excise tax liability for the first, third, or fourth quarter of the year (for example, filers reporting the foreign insurance tax (IRS No. 30) don't make an entry on the line for IRS No. 133 on those filings).

A participant (or her beneficiary or alternate payee) might prefer to know the amounts of the previously taxed participant contributions. Why? Not every distribution is a retirement benefit. For example, a distribution before age 59½ with no condition about “a stated period of employment” might not be a retirement benefit. See 61 Pa. Code § 101.6(c)(8)(iii)(A)(I). If a distribution is not a retirement benefit (and is not a tax-free transfer or rollover into another plan), the distribution “shall be included in income to the extent that contributions were not previously included in this [compensation] income.” 61 Pa. Code § 101.6(c)(8)(iii)(A). The previously taxed amounts are recovered first, not proportionately over periodic payments. 61 Pa. Code § 101.6(c)(8)(iii)(B). Pennsylvania’s instructions and other publications tell a taxpayer to keep records of her previously taxed amounts.

Under old rules, I think the idea would be that you would have to determine designated benes by Oct 31 of the year following death and start payouts by Dec 31 of that year if the bene(s) wanted a lifetime payment option. I guess the consequence is that would have been under the 5 year rule. After SECURE, non-spouse benes have to take everything within 10 years (with some exceptions) so I don't think it matters too much. (All this from memory without checking on new rules so others can chime in and correct me if I'm wrong or missing something.)

Depends on how the assets are managed in the paying of the fee. It it's offset against the revenue sharing or some sort of sweep arrangement then that portion is netted against the gain/loss. If it's paid directly out of the trust then its an expense. And is it's managed as a commission or fee paid by the insurance custodian then it goes to 10(e).

How is #2 "Fees and expenses for...investment management.." not a "management fee on the investments"??

In my fee statements, I include (in chronological order) descriptions of tasks I choose not to bill with as much detail as for tasks billed. Among other advantages, this creates another record about work I did and advice I delivered. If ever there is the question “Why didn’t you tell me . . . .”, it’s nice to have an extra way to show I delivered the advice. For an audit, I can truthfully confirm the statements needed for an ABA/AICPA no-undisclosed-loss-contingencies letter looking only at my billing entries. If there is no entry in my fee statements, I must not have given “substantive attention” to whatever might have been or became a potential loss contingency.

There used to be a fairly thorough CCH or Prentice Hall practice guide on VEBAs 501(c)(9) trusts- if I were you I’d look up a couple of those resources as it’s a long essay answer - one pro is an accelerated deduction in certain instances for a few non-traditional benefits

No one has mentioned the 80-120 rule so far. Please see below as the information also applies to 2021 years. But wait, there is an exception…the 80-120 participant rule. This exception provides some level of relief for plan sponsors to avoid having to change filing categories. Included in the Department of Labor (“DOL”) Regulation 2520.103-1(d), “plans with between 80 and 120 participants (inclusive) at the beginning of the current plan year may elect to complete the current year return using the same category (that is, “large” plan or “small” plan) that was used in the previous year.” The Department of Labor (“DOL”) has graciously provided this exception in the instructions to the Form 5500. As it relates to the determination of the necessity of a 2020 plan audit, the DOL states, “if the number of participants reported on line 5 is between 80 and 120, and a Form 5500 Annual Return/Report was filed for the prior plan year, you may elect to complete the return/report in the same category (‘‘large plan’’ or ‘‘small plan’’) as was filed for the prior return/report. Thus, if a Form 5500-SF or a Form 5500 Annual Return/Report was filed for the 2019 plan year as a small plan, including the Schedule I if applicable, and the number entered on line 5 of the 2020 Form 5500 is 120 or less, you may elect to complete the 2020 Form 5500 and schedules in accordance with the instructions for a small plan, including for eligible filers, filing the Form 5500-SF instead of the Form

I think the 3 terminated participants that received a contribution in 2021 are considered terminated participants with a vested balance at 12/31/21. Just because the plan didn't fund it until 2021 doesn't mean it can be ignored for 2020 since it was based on 2020 compensation. Is the audit on a modified cash basis? If yes, this method could still record contributions receivable.

On this basis I would argue a 1/1 count of 98 and no audit. Even on an accrual basis you could argue that if the residual contribution true-up was an accrued contribution as of the prior 12/31 that the payment thereof was a distribution payable as of 12/31 - so still not participants at 1/1, IMHO.

Plans are either pre-approved or individually designed. Pre-approved plans can (and many/most? do) provide for individual profit sharing allocation groups. There may still be document providers out there that do not include this option for whatever reason, but in the small plan market this is becoming the norm in my opinion.

1. Yes, NMSNs are an automatically qualifying standardized form of QMCSO. 2. If the employee is not currently enrolled and there are multiple plan options available, the employer will complete Response 3 to notify the issuing agency of those available plan options, and which option the employee and child(ren) will be enrolled in by default if the issuing agency does not respond within 20 business days selecting a specific plan option. It generally makes sense to rely on the lowest-cost plan as the default coverage for these purposes because the employee will be required to pay the employee-share of the premium for such coverage. 3. The Section 125 permitted election change event that applies here (Treas. Reg. §1.125-4(d)) addresses only enrollment of child(ren) subject to the order. I'm not seeing any basis for enrollment of the spouse. 4. If the employee is not already enrolled, DOL guidance and the NMSN instructions confirm that the NMSN will require the employer to enroll both the employee and the child(ren) to provide coverage. Lots more details here if you're interested: https://www.theabdteam.com/blog/employer-responsibilities-upon-receipt-of-a-nmsn/

Yes. Receiving an IRS letter does not disqualify an employer from using DFVC. But don't wait around too long.