Leaderboard

If I am replacing (however that is being done technically) a Non-ERISA Plan with an ERISA plan, I try to insert "ERISA" in the name just before "403(b)" because it helps avoid confusion for everyone.

But the document language that Metsfan026 cited says it happens after a 5 year break (an earlier post by Kac2014 called for immediate deemed cashouts, but it was a different document). I think this is a mechanical exercise - if they had a 5 year break prior to plan termination, then they are 0% vested and forfeit; otherwise they become vested upon termination. Some (many) years ago, when we submitted plans for DLs, the IRS would ask about forfeitures within 5 years of the plan termination. It wasn't ever a problem, but I think the idea was that they were looking for terminations and forfeitures that were somewhat related to the plan termination. I think I even remember them asking for evidence that someone who term'd a couple of years prior was a voluntary term (quit vs. fired). I asked "what's the difference?" I think I got a mumbled answer about it possibly being related to the plan termination, but in any event it wasn't challenged.

One advising a participating employer might consider, and advise about, these points: A participating employer is a pooled-employer plan’s fiduciary. ERISA § 3(43)(B)(iii). ERISA makes it a fiduciary breach (and a Federal crime) for a person to handle plan assets or serve as a plan’s fiduciary unless the person is “bonded” with ERISA fidelity-bond insurance, at least for the § 412(a)-required amount. Even if one is confident that the employer-fiduciary never handles plan assets, construing § 412(a) to require only a bond of $0.00 is a doubtful interpretation of the statute. Section 412(a) includes: “In no case shall such bond be less than $1,000[.] An interpretation in the 2008 Field Assistance Bulletin or in the 2022 Information Letter is not a rule or regulation. A court need not defer to it. A court need not even consider it. If a court considers an executive agency’s nonrule guidance, a court considers the stated reasoning and evaluates whether the reasoning persuades the court about how to interpret an ambiguous statute. Not buying the insurance because one assumes an employer-fiduciary regularly pays over contributions promptly and so does not handle plan assets is risky. Fidelity-bond insurance does not protect a plan from a theft loss unless the insurance is in effect when the theft happens. Imagine a plan suffers a theft loss with the theft happening before money was collected by the pooled-employer plan’s trustee or its agent. Imagine all or some of the loss would be covered had the employer obtained ERISA fidelity-bond insurance. Could a participant harmed by the theft loss assert that the employer-fiduciary is personally liable for the uncovered loss because the fiduciary failed to do what the statute commands? Consider ERISA § 409(a). Even if the employer pays the insurance premium (and it need not, because fidelity-bond coverage is a plan-administration expense), might that be much less expensive than bearing personal liability for a theft loss?

Way back in the day, I shared office space with a wonderful CPA. One day he asked me what my collection rate was. I told him I collected 100% of what I billed. He said "then your rates aren't high enough." I increased my rates 100% and only lost one client. He also told me to never fire a client, but raise your rates to where they leave. He said having someone say "they are too expensive" isn't really a negative. Now, I haven't kept that faithfully and we do let clients go on occasion. But the lesson stuck and I don't think I (or any firm I've owned or worked with) have ever been much below market except for the rare exception.

They do indeed on both counts - I've had plans where the D-B amounts caused not only a 415 excess, but also have seen a 404 excess the IRS caught on audit.

QDROphile, I think the way this has to be structured is as a direct transfer. The participant must identify the transferee plan to the transferor plan and then the transferor plan endorses the note to the transferee plan, substituting the transferee plan for itself as the loan's obligee.

The applicable reg under IRC 411(d)(6) is 1.411(d)-3. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-26/chapter-I/subchapter-A/part-1/subject-group-ECFR686e4ad80b3ad70/section-1.411(d)-3 Subsection (b)(3) mentions that "ancillary" benefits are not protected. Subsection (g)(2) defines "ancillary".

The Department of Labor released an Information Letter on 9/7/2022 specifically addressing this question (see attached). There are 3 interesting points. First, the DOL notes the maximum bond for a PEP is $1,000,000. Next, on page 2, the DOL observes the PEP does not have to extend ERISA fiduciary bond coverage to employees of employers participating in a PEP. This conclusion follows comments that the bonding regulations address the point at which contributions to a plan become "funds or other property" of the plan for purposes of the bonding requirements, and this does not occur until the contributions are received by the plan administrator (i.e., the PEP). Immediately after arriving at this conclusion, the DOL comments "that there may be circumstances in which participant contributions are not timely transmitted to the PEP". In other words, the contributions handled by employees of employers are not plan assets until the contributions are received by the PEP, or under some unspecified circumstances, the contributions are late deposits and then they become plan assets in the hands of the employer. Then, at the end of the letter the DOL observes the PEP needs to make sure that an independent contractor administrator or manager who handles plan funds must be properly covered by an ERISA fiduciary bond. To answer your question, it appears that according to this letter, the employees of employers to adopt the PEP do not need their own ERISA bond unless they fail to timely transmit contributions. Gummint logic. DOL Information Letter 09-07-2022.pdf

That's how I would read it. I think because of the deemed cash out provisions, folks probably should have been deemed cashed out if they terminated in prior years. Folks that terminated in the year of plan termination, I think you'd have a tougher time deeming them cashed out. I'm not sure what the IRS position is on folks who were deemed cashed out in the 5 years proceeding the termination, if you have to restore them because they don't have a 5 year BIS, but I personally have not done that even on Plans that used to be submitted to the IRS for a DL on termination.

Absolutely. A lot of practitioners (not just TPAs) get stuck in mindset where they don't want to lose clients or do not want to replace clients with high annual invoices. I have seen people struggle to keep a client that represents 10% of revenue but 30%+ of work. Most TPAs don't track time or billable hours like CPAs and attorneys do, and it is no doubt a PITA! What diligent time tracking does do is show how valuable a client is, or if they are a vampire. For example, lets assume your hourly rate is $300. You don't bill your clients $300/hour, but $300 per hour is what you are worth to you firm. The $300 "rate" covers your salary and benefits, overhead, and estimated profit over the year. If you work 20 hours on a client and bill $3,000, you are only realizing 50% of your calculated rate. If this rate is calculated to allow you to continue your practice, this client is a vampire, especially if your combined realization rate is less than 100%. This is something I see TPAs struggle with all the time.

Doesn't document say that if you terminated with 0% vested balance, you forfeited on termination (ie, deemed to have received distribution of 0% on termination)? From FTW CB Document For purposes of this Section, if the value of a Participant's vested Accrued Benefit is zero, the Participant shall be deemed to have received a distribution of such vested Accrued Benefit.

R. Scott, here are some things to consider when addressing this challenging topic: First there is a fundamental reality that you have a business to run and you need to align your revenue stream with your expenses no matter what anyone else is doing. To the extent that your fees are paid from a plan, you must disclose the fees to a Responsible Plan Fiduciary in accordance with DOL's 408(b)(2). It is a good time to review the rules to make sure you consider what must be disclosed, and here are some resources: https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/EBSA/about-ebsa/our-activities/resource-center/fact-sheets/final-regulation-service-provider-disclosures-under-408b2.pdf https://www.davis-harman.com/pub.aspx?ID=VFdwak5BPT0= When you discuss fees with a client, you will raise their consciousness that you are a service provider and they pay you fees. Much like you have not addressed fees for almost 10 years, the client may not have evaluated the fees they are paying you over that same time period. Essentially, if a plan pays your fees and a client has not periodically re-evaluated your fees, they have not performed their fiduciary responsibility to monitor fees. You can expect varied reactions. A longstanding client that values their relationship with you as a trusted resource likely will not blink at the increase. A client that see you as a vendor providing perfunctory services will likely shop around. A client that has had a recent less than pleasant experience with you likely will use the fee as an excuse to terminate the relationship. A client may be experiencing its own need to reassess their revenue stream versus their expenses and you will be shining a light on the expense of your services. Hopefully, the client perceives that the value of your services match or exceed your fees. As part of this process, you also should address any clients that are vampires. They consume extraordinary amounts of your time and do not pay you for that time. You should be ready to have a frank discussion about services you have performed that were outside the scope of your existing agreement. Be prepared to walk away from any such bloodsuckers. A few others commenters have suggested what I consider best practices for keeping fee agreements up to date year over year. You should adopt a best practice and include it in your discussions and updated fee agreements. Good luck!

We send an annual engagement letter with a fee schedule attached. Used to send an updated fee schedule with the census request with stipulation that their providing the census was their consent to the new fee schedule. Most times, if there is a response, they ask what the old schedule was. Majority of the clients .... crickets.

While your Q/topic is not addressed specifically in the Guidelines, it is possible your query could be interpreted in a way that looks like "price-fixing". Generally frowned upon here. Tread carefully.

No. Since it is a non-spouse beneficiary the distribution would have to be under the 10 year SECURE Act rule, but since the participant was not RMD age you don't have RMDs. The PS and CB plans may have different death benefit rules though so as always RTD.

You file the Form 5500 you are required to file. If it is a one-participant plan in 2023, you file an EZ. Will they follow up looking for an SF? Probably, but you are ineligible for the SF in 2023 if its a one-participant plan.

The employees are the Doc's employees, not the employees of the PEO. Think of a PEO as a fancy payroll service. Of course they have to counted in the doc's plans!