Leaderboard

@Craig Hoffman I haven't seen any for my clients yet, but I know there were erroneous denials dated 9/16 that have been talked about previously. Edit: We did get a denial dated 9/30/24, but it was for a 8/31 due date. 5558 mailed on 8/23/24.

From a statutory perspective, you'll want to ask about blackout dates as there will likely be a need for SOX Blackout notice at least 30 days in advance. Also consider the investment lineup in each plan. Will investments map to the same vehicles, or will these be changing? If changing, will there be a new default investment possibly triggering a QDIA notice. I usually see a 60-90 day lead time for informational notices to participants. These may not be required but certainly lead to a better participant experience, especially if there are significant changes. If this is a 401k plan, will deferral and/or investment allocation elections transfer or will new elections be required? Plan design will drive a lot of what an employer will want to communicate.

Here is my concern. The letters we received were all dated 9/23 and were received by clients late last week. That was after your survey. I am trying to determine if more of these are now surfacing.

Yes, that does help. Thanks for everyone's input. Much appreciated.

Hello all, I have been a lurker for many years but have finally signed up to comment. I think this is a more widespread problem. We have 4 plans (so far) that received the letter denying the extension. All were dated 9/23/24. We have Fed Ex tracking data to verify they were all delivered to Ogden on 7/31 so we can deal with it if need be. However, from my days at ASPPA, I believe this sounds more like something is amiss in Utah. I am wondering if anyone besides HarleyBabe and our firm has begun receiving the denial letters. If so, it may be necessary to have a conversation with EPEO folks. Craig

She is subject to the same eligibility conditions as all other employees. Now if you are asking if her unpaid service counts towards the 1000 requirement, that's not an argument I'd like to have with the IRS on audit.

Its plan design. The plan is safe harbor regardless of any actual deferrals and match contributions.

I dealt with a similar situation earlier this year, perhaps involving the same Russian ETF. The assets could not be transferred to the new recordkeeper via ACAT because they are subject to OFAC blocking sanctions. The fund wasn't available in the new SDBA so they could not be transferred in-kind, and these assets legally cannot be sold or traded so they could not be liquified. We discovered one participant had holdings in the Russian ETF during conversion, and we simply left those holdings at the prior recordkeeper. All other assets were transferred. We will continue to track and include these assets for 5500 purposes etc. until sanctions are lifted and they can be transferred or liquidated, or the underlying companies in the portfolio file bankruptcy and the holding can be written down to $0. The only other option we considered was whether the participant could take an in-service withdrawal and roll those assets into an IRA with the prior recordkeeper. The recordkeeper said they could accommodate this, and the participant was interested in doing it. Unfortunately, in our case the participant wasn't eligible for an in-service withdrawal.