Leaderboard

Ha, maybe this "unused" document can go towards some random plan sponsor who never signed a document but had all those board minutes and resolutions intending to set one up! Definitely one for the Upside Down.

I'm not saying this as a fact, but bringing it up as a possibility to be explored. Was this PSP communicated to employees (via SPD and any other methods)? Other than a plan document, was there anything else to support that there was indeed a plan? Maybe via the facts and circumstances it could be construed that there never actually was a bona fide plan? What were the reasons for not making 2020 or 2021 contributions and is that now likely the case for 2022 as well? Say they NEVER make a contribution - was there a plan? I might even go so far as to say if the company deducted fees it paid to generate a plan document, such might not be a legitimate business expense because in practice there was no employee benefit plan established. Maybe this is just alternate universe upside down crazy talk, and I'm not saying I would hang my straightjacket on this, but just thinking outside the box (or asylum cell).

Pretty sure that's an ERISA requirement, so it wouldn't be applicable for owner-only scenarios.

Most plans are going to use the W-2 or withholding safe harbor. I would say if it's on the employee's W-2 for 2022 and if it is currently subject to FICA and FITW, you should count it as comp.

With the new audit requirements, Peter is absolutely right and it would still be a number that would surprise many people due to the requirements added on this year to an effective audit. The CPAs still have their checklists that they have to follow regardless of how large the Plan is.

Did any participant receive less under the formula that was used in operation than they should have under the formula in the document? Presumably the answer is no - the 100% up to 3% plus 50% up to 5% formula is equally or more generous at all contribution levels than the 100% up to 1% plus 50% up to 6% formula. Assuming that's the case, then you don't owe anybody any money, but you still have an operational failure for failure to follow the terms of the plan document. This can be corrected in one of two ways: either pull the extra contributions, adjusted for earnings, back from the participants and put it in an unallocated account where it will be used to fund future employer contributions; or adopt a retroactive amendment to increase the matching formula to the formula that was used in operation. Whether either of these options can be done on a self-correction basis or whether it will have to go through VCP depends on how many years is "several" and whether the error is significant or insignificant.

You'll always need a Schedule SB for the contribution year, signed and delivered to the Plan Sponsor. If it's an EZ the SB isn't filed with IRS but is maintained and subject to audit. If it's adopted in 2022 for 2021 under the SECURE Act your first required filing is 2022 Plan year (assuming you are over $250K) in which case you attach the 2021 and 2022 SB to the 2022 filing but if it's an EZ you don't attach the SBs. In your last example, it would depend if you are filing on a cash basis or accrual basis whether or not you are over $250,000 for the 2022 plan year for purposes of required EZ.

FIS pre-approved documents also modify the SPD if the election in the appendix is made.

The ftwilliam documents have an option (yes/no) for automatic revocation of a beneficiary designation upon divorce. That choice is carried over into the SPD.

We are using FT Williams and the option to revoke the beneficiary designation appears in the AA. In Datair, I think it is in the BPD and is an automatic revocation.

Even if one imagines an audit of a retirement plan trust’s financial statements that report no asset (beyond a right to collect a contribution if the employer declares one), no income, and no expense, don’t be surprised if an independent qualified public accountant seeks a minimum fee it charges for any ERISA audit, no matter how little work the IQPA anticipates. And don’t be surprised if the IQPA requests some writing in which “management” confirms that no contribution was declared.

DFVC a Form 5500-SF for 2020 since it was due even though there were $0 assets. Yes they have an audit for 2021 as you have move than 120 participants on the first day of the plan year. Should be the cheapest easiest audit in history one would suppose. Why does the Plan exist? Should it be terminated? Yes it has filing requirements as long as it exists.

Corollary: what do beneficiary forms and/or SPD and/or any other EE communication say about this feature?

It's like the worst of each type combined.

New Cycle 3 document that we use defaults to the automatic revocation of spousal designation upon divorce. There is an OPTION in the Appendix to choose not to apply this automatic revocation.

No. A SIMPLE IRA is just a special kind of IRA, and it effectively becomes a regular IRA after the 2 year initial period (although "SIMPLE" will remain on the registration). The sponsor would have no control over forcing employees into the IRAs and no control once money is in. Don't forget you can't, or aren't supposed to, have a SIMPLE IRA and qualified plan in the same calendar year.