Leaderboard

That is incorrect. The due date depends on a variety of factors, amount particularly, but many plans are on weekly, monthly, or quarterly deposit timing. If the tax is not required to be remitted right away, and it is small enough to be sent in with the Form 945, it is subject to the form filing due date, typically January 31 after the year ends. The 20% withholding is 945 tax type, so if you look for information on that, you should be able to get additional information. Note: When the Form 945 is due is not the same as when the actual $$ must be sent in. The $$ typically have to be sent in sooner.

Theres also the question on the 5500, whether a blackout notice was provided. They would have to answer "no" and that could catch someones attention. Which has to be factored in as well.

Did they actually sign a plan document and forget they signed it? Because if they did sign a plan document, they have created a contract that promises certain benefits to their employees. Now why this is coming up in 2024, four plan years after the first one is a mystery to me. Is this coming up now because they sent out Cycle 3 restatement letters and just realized they had no data, no valuations and no 5500s for 2021, 2022 and 2023? Now if they didn't actually sign a plan document, that's a different story because then you don't have a plan. I don't want to think about the penalties for failure to meet minimum funding or what they might owe to the plan should they have to correct this. But the client may want to consider bringing their own ERISA attorney to that meeting.

In addition to the excellent points raised above, how has the plan administrator previously interpreted the term "particiant" with respct to eligibility to take loans? If employees who have not yet satisified the year osf service and have rolled over balances fro other plans have been permitted to take loans fom their rollover accounts, that is the administrator's interpretation and would set a precedent for considering such an employee eligible to take a loan as to that amount.

Agree to read the document. It will include the sources from which loans can be issued. I’ll be shocked if Rollover account isn’t one of them. I would also be shocked if someone with a Rollover account isn’t included as a participant even if they haven’t met the eligibility for other sources.

There is no 45-day requirement in the law or regulations. 1.401(k)-3(d)(3)(i) requires that the safe harbor notice be provided to participants "within a reasonable period before the beginning of the plan year." Subparagraph (ii) provides a safe harbor that the timing requirement is deemed satisfied if the notice is provided no less than 30 and no more than 90 days before the beginning of the year. The service provider may have an internal process that they can not update the plan specifications less than 45 days before the end of the year and still comply with the 30 day safe harbor. Plans using the nonelective contribution to satisfy the ADP safe harbor are no longer required to provide a notice at all, since SECURE 1.0. However a notice is still required if the plan wants to satisfy the ACP safe harbor, even if using a nonelective contribution.

The Forms 1095-B were solely the carrier's responsibility and only addressing §6055 (MEC) reporting. The §6056 (ER mandate) reporting is the component missed by the employer not providing/filing the Forms 1095-C, assuming the employer is an ALE. So there is no action item for the 1095-B. That was never the client's responsibility, and it appears it was handled properly regardless. For the missed Forms 1095-C, the client will have to decide how to proceed. We're past the timeframe for the standard reduced penalty relief (that ended 8/1). If arguing for reasonable cause relief, filing asap will likely improve the chances of success. More details: https://www.newfront.com/blog/aca-reporting-requirements-in-2025 Slide summary: 2024 Newfront ACA Employer Mandate & ACA Reporting Guide

You didn’t ask, but if this is a 401(k) plan and Company A and Company B are not under common control or properly treated as a single employer, are they related in a way that allows the plan to be exempt from registration under applicable securities laws?