Leaderboard

Just to be clear, the Form 8955-SSA is not under the jurisdiction of the DOL and the failure to file the 8955-SSA does not impact whether or not you have filed a complete Form 5500/-SF. Therefore, DFVCP could not be an option. The 8955-SSA is an IRS form and late filing penalties are governed by Code §6652(d)(1) - $10 per participant per day, up to a maximum of $50,000. It is to the IRS that you would plead your case if needed (but this isn't governed under EPCRS either). The actual statutory language is "... unless it is shown that such failure is due to reasonable cause, there shall be paid (on notice and demand by the Secretary and in the same manner as tax) by the person failing so to file, an amount equal to $10 for each participant with respect to whom there is a failure to file, multiplied by the number of days during which such failure continues, but the total amount imposed under this paragraph on any person for any failure to file with respect to any plan year shall not exceed $50,000." (emphasis added) To RatherBeGolfing's point, Treasury doesn't appear to be demanding the penalty often. Bird is right, put them on the 2022 form.

B needs a new TPA. You are correct on all accounts.

Don't forget this rule, though....page 105 of 140 in Rev. Proc. 2021-30 (it's what BG5150 looks to be asking about): (F)Special Rule for Brief Exclusion from Elective Deferrals and After-Tax Employee Contributions. An Plan Sponsor is not required to make a corrective contribution with respect to elective deferrals (including designated Roth contributions)or after-tax employee contributions, as provided in sections 2.02(1)(a)(ii)(B) and (C), but is required to make a corrective contribution with respect to any matching contributions, as provided in section 2.02(1)(a)(ii)(D), for an employee for a plan year if the employee has been provided the opportunity to make elective deferrals or after-tax employee contributions under the plan for a period of at least the last 9 months in that plan year and during that period the employee had the opportunity to make elective deferrals or after-tax employee contributions in an amount not less than the maximum amount that would have been permitted if no failure had occurred. (See Examples 6 and 7.)

For an ERISA-governed retirement plan, a domestic-relations order is not a qualified domestic-relations order unless, with other conditions, the “order clearly specifies— . . . the amount or percentage of the participant’s benefits to be paid by the plan to each such alternate payee, or the manner in which such amount or percentage is to be determined[.]” ERISA § 206(d)(3)(C)(ii). Since 1984, recordkeepers have tried—sometimes subtly and sometimes unsubtly, and with varying degrees of success—to push divorce practitioners and unadvised litigants into writing orders that call for the alternate payee’s percentage to be applied on the day the plan’s administrator (or its service provider) implements the order. That’s because an order that calls for a division as of a date in the past, with some measure of investment results after that date, is a pain-in-the-assets for a recordkeeper’s services. A plan’s administrator, if it obeys the plan’s governing documents and applicable law, must not ignore what a court’s order provides if the order is a qualified domestic-relations order. But what a plan’s administrator must do might not be the measure of what service a recordkeeper is obligated to provide. As RatherBeGolfing suggests, consider making sure the information you read or heard truly is the recordkeeper’s work method. Also, consider whether you want a candid conversation about whether it might be wise (or unwise) to edit the plan administrator’s DRO procedure and model form of court order (if you furnish one) to fit more closely the work methods the administrator and the recordkeeper agree on.

I agree this doesn't seem right. Is this coming from someone with authority? The DRO will usually refer to the valuation on or closest to the determination date. The valuation date is the valuation date, whether it is daily valuation, annual valuation, or whatever it is. If it is on a RK platform, it is probably daily val right? I don't see how an RK could argue that they can simply ignore gains and losses pursuant to a court order. And if they are saying they can't do it, it is even more problematic.

It was the same plan, so 001 is correct.

Are you sure the person terminated? PRN is hospital/medical-speak for "as needed". An employee marked as such works less than parttime but hasn't been terminated, although they could have 0 hours for a year, I guess. Would that be a termination for plan purposes? It's not clear to me.

Depends upon what they are really trying to do, and how they want to structure it, coupled with how much they want to spend. They could, for example, have an enhanced safe harbor match of, say, 200%, or even more, of the first 6%. Something like that would, to me, seem like a pretty powerful incentive. But it might not suit the employer's needs/budget. A cross tested PS formula, depending upon census, can work wonders, although in this case, a nonelective safe harbor (regular or enhanced) might be a better option, as the safe harbor nonelective can be used toward satisfying Gateway, whereas the SH match cannot.

I can't help but comment: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SOLO 401(K) PLAN! There is just plan documents that are crippled and probably screwing up clients all the time (we know that's true: they often end up on our doorstep and we have to "fix" things). If he never hires a real employee, his existing plan document can do all you need to. If the plan was well drafted, there should be a provision that says HCEs don't need to get the Safe Harbor allocation (but you CAN give them a PS allocation if the client desires). You can amend the plan to eliminate the safe harbor provision, but it likely doesn't matter. Hopefully, as noted by another, there is the standard 1 year/ age 21/ semi-annual entry date provision, which a lot of so called "solo 401(k) plans" have hard wired as immediate entry; that's a problem if, g-d forbid, he hires someone for even one day. They also tend to be hard wired for immediate 100% vesting; also should be avoided just in case they ever hire someone. Again, the "solo 401(k)" document is just a crippled document with bad provisions. Bottom line: if your plan document is a good one, then just modify anything you really don't want and keep it. As far as moving it to a "new vendor", if you are just talking about the investment, a non-participant directed, pooled plan would make the most sense for this situation and those changes can be made to the plan document and you can invest the funds with anyone you want.