Leaderboard

The AICPA has an Employee Benefit Plan Audit Quality Center of CPA firms that in their words "serves as a comprehensive resource provider for member firms to support you in the performance of your Employee Benefit Plan Audit practice." CPA firms that qualify for membership are peer reviewed and have demonstrated expertise in auditing retirement plans. While many national firms are on the list, you will find many more regional and local firms that have a specialty practice focusing on plan audits with expertise that rivals that of the national firms. Attached is a list of EBPAQC member firms as of August 23, 2023. The list includes the city and state of each firm, the name of a contact, and for many a link to the firms website. The list also is available sorted by state. Good luck! EBPAQC-Firm-Members-By-State.pdf EBPAQC-Firm-Members.pdf

#1 is no. The Plan must be timely adopted. Since there was no extension the deadline to adopt has already past. Either 3/15/23 or 4/15/23 depending on the type or tax payer and assuming calendar year filer. #2 I believe is yes as long as the Plan is adopted by the extended due date and the contribution is deposited by the extended deadline; you'd just file an amended return. If it were a plan subject to minimum funding it might have an earlier deadline to avoid the 10% excise tax for failure to timely meet minimum funding. I think both of these sets of facts have been discussed here on benefitslink with citations to support each in recent months but I'm too lazy to search.

My guess is that 1 is bad and 2 is good, since the tax deadline is not 9-15 in the case without an extension.

Agree 100% with the above: #1 - NO, #2 - YES.

Unless two-year wait, which = full vesting, how was this person not eligible 7/1/2014? With a 4/2013 hire, 1/2015 entry would violate 18-month maximum hold out.

Interesting situation and position. My thoughts are: State insurance laws generally don't apply outside of the state where policy is sitused, so the FL age 30 mandate and the state mini-COBRA rules won't apply to B's plan. The COBRA M&A rules still require on of the statutorily prescribed triggering events to cause loss of coverage to form a COBRA qualifying event. Those rules specifically state that an employee retained by the buyer doesn't experience a QE upon the transaction even if the employee/dependent lost coverage (because there's no triggering event where no termination of employment). I think one argument could be that they would've have a 36-month QE for the children upon aging out of B's plan if they had been in it upon reaching age 26, but in this case that option doesn't appear to be available. Your argument appears to be that the children effectively had the triggering event the instant the COBRA rules sprang coverage responsibility to B, because at that point they lost dependent status. But again, since they never were actually in dependent status with B I don't think that works. I think the best analogy would be to assume the transaction never happened and S amended its plan to remove the age 30 dependent provision and bring it to the standard age 26 provision. Good arguments on both sides as to whether that's a COBRA QE. Ultimately, if you could get the carrier (or stop-loss) to agree that it's a QE, I would assume it is a QE and proceed accordingly regardless of these technical considerations. Otherwise, I think you're stuck between a rock and a hard place and will have to direct the dependents to the exchange. Treas. Reg. §54.4980B-9, Q/A-5: Q-. 5. In the case of a stock sale, is the sale a qualifying event with respect to a covered employee who is employed by the acquired organization before the sale and who continues to be employed by the acquired organization after the sale, or with respect to the spouse or dependent children of such a covered employee? A- 5. No. A covered employee who continues to be employed by the acquired organization after the sale does not experience a termination of employment as a result of the sale. Accordingly, the sale is not a qualifying event with respect to the covered employee, or with respect to the covered employee's spouse or dependent children, regardless of whether they are provided with group health coverage after the sale, and neither the covered employee, nor the covered employee's spouse or dependent children, become qualified beneficiaries as a result of the sale.

This is the type of situation where you need to read the plan document carefully to sort out three different topics, each of which can have its own rules that may look very similar or very different from each other within the document. The topics are: Eligibility Vesting Benefit accrual (for a PS plan, allocation conditions) It is possible, for example, for a rehired participant in a plan that uses rules of parity for determining eligibility to not be eligible. If the same plan uses elapsed time for vesting service, that participant could be vested. Within the rules of parity, there can be a distinction between pre-break service and post-break service. It is best to see what the plan document says for calculating eligibility service and vesting service. Be on the lookout one of the trickiest provisions where a rehired participant gets retroactive credit for pre-break service only after the participant completes one year of service after returning to service. Another tricky part of applying the rules of parity is that the rules use a Break-in-Service to determine when a participant counting consecutive One-Year-Breaks-in-Service. A participant may, under the plan provisions, have worked more or less than 500 hours (particularly in the year of termination or year of rehire) which can impact the count. Note this count also can be impacted when the participant's Eligibility Computation Period shifts from the first 12 month's of employment to the plan year. What is amazing is these rules been in existence since 1975 and somehow have survived. Good luck!

That's a tough one. You pays your money and you takes your chances. The statutory language in IRC 410(a)(5)(D)(iii) defines a nonvested participant as one who does not have any nonforfeitable right to an "accrued benefit derived from employer contributions." 1.411(a)-7(2) defines an accrued benefit as "the balance of the employee's account held under the plan." It would seem pretty reasonable to argue that you could use the rule of parity here, even if "vested" assuming there is no account balance. I'm not sure there is any guidance directly on point for this question - and of course, document provisions rule...

A small firm might have the needed and desired capabilities and sufficient licensing. Local or not doesn’t matter for doing the audit’s work, which ordinarily uses electronic records, electronic communications, and electronic file-sharing. It might matter for licensing. Under many States’ public-accountancy statutes, the act of expressing an opinion on another person’s financial statements and delivering that report is the act that calls for a public-accountancy license. But in searching otherwise suitable firms, you need not limit a selection to firms with an office in the same State as the retirement plan’s administrator. Why? Some CPAs might maintain plenary licenses with two or more States. For example, a firm in Delaware might have a partner or principal who also maintains a license with another State, perhaps because she took the exams after completing her five school years there and applied while living in that State or applied in the State of her domicile. Further, some States’ laws allow some limited recognition of another State’s licensee. But reciprocity for audit or assurance services might be more limited than for other services. If a plan’s administrator acts as a fiduciary in selecting an independent qualified public accountant, the administrator’s duties of loyalty and prudence might suggest looking to a firm’s capabilities, perhaps especially if the circumstances already involve a known breach that suggests a control weakness.

I agree with Bill, Insurance may be purchased on a participants life as a general trust investment, "key person coverage". This coverage is for the benefit of all participants and not solely for the benefit of any one participant. As a general trust investment the cash value would be included as the other investments on the Form 5500 as Bird points out. Upon the termination of the Plan the life insurance would be allocated per the Plan Document. I am assuming that the life insurance is owned by the Plan and the beneciary is also the Plan and would be curious as to why the owner feels he/she is entitled to the cash value. If the owner has been paying the PS 58 cost it may not be "key person coverage", however, if this is coverage as "key person" there would be no PS 58 cost reported. I would also like to see any minutes or fiduciary reporting that this investment, in the life insurance, was purchased as a general trust investment.

I've never seen it in a pooled DC plan. As Bird says, "back in the day" I did see it used occasionally in a DB plan, the theory being that it would provide plan assets in the event of a key person death, ensuring that the plan had sufficient funds to pay promised benefits if the business suffered losses due to the death of the key person. That was so long ago that I don't believe the lever or the inclined plane had been developed...

There are some nuances when QSLOBs are involved. The separation rules are strict about any commingling of the plans. For starters, a QSLOB election remains in place until the plans file with the IRS that the QSLOB is being rescinded. The purchase agreement itself likely cannot rescind the QSLOB. There can be complications particularly if the purchase transaction creates short plan years. To keep things clean and not inadvertently triggering a violation of the QSLOB rules, consider having the effective date of the purchase agreement coincide with the first day of a new plan year for each plan. As part of the acquisition process, consider having each plan clean up all existing forfeitures in each plan by using them to pay expenses or allocating them within each respective QSLOB. This avoids any question about whether participants in one QSLOB benefited from assets in the other QSLOB. Is this overly conservative? Probably, but the consequences of blowing the QSLOB and fixing resulting coverage failures should make it worth the effort.

Before ERISA, forfeitures could be allocated only to employees of the specific employer that maintained the plan in which they arose. ERISA established the principle that all members of a controlled group are treated as a single employer for almost all purposes, including the exclusive benefit rule. Rev. Rul. 84-50 confirmed that the pre-ERISA ruling on the point (Rev. Rul. 69-570) is obsolete.