Leaderboard

To answer a) - See Appendix A., Schedule of User Fees in Rev. Proc. 2024-4, .05. There is a user fee of $300 for "(2) Assumption of sponsorship of a pre-approved plan, without any amendment to the plan document, by a new entity, as evidenced by a change of employer identification number, per basic plan document." I haven't done it, but I would guess you'd submit an application using IRS Form 4461 and answer Yes to 9.d. This is not advice as I haven't done it, but perhaps it will point you in the right direction. To answer b) - I don't know that most employers even know there is a list unless their advisers tell them, although it might be incumbent on the provider in this case to disclose that.

As CuseFan points out if the Plan allows for ROTh and in-Plan conversions of ROTH, then sure he could do that. If by recharaterize he means go back and change each year from pre-tax to ROTH retroactively, no.

The loan must bear a reasonable rate of interest in order to be exempt from being a prohibited transaction under IRC 4975(d)(1)(D) and ERISA 408(b)(1)(D). Since a plan fiduciary (and the plan administrator, even in a non-Title I plan) may not enter into a prohibited transaction, the loan could not be made in the first place. So, I suppose I agree with your conclusion that making a loan with an unreasonable interest rate would not be a 72(p) violation. It would however be a disqualifying failure and a fiduciary breach.

Just curious, what is the accountant trying to accomplish (or, perhaps the questions should be why are they trying to accomplish that)? If the CPA expects that no 500-999 HOS participant is going to defer, isn't having them treated as LTPT (excludable from nondiscrimination testing and top-heavy minimum contributions) better than amending the plan to bring them in as traditional participants (where they drag down the test results and may have to receive an employer contribution). It seems to me that the desire to avoid LTPT status is likely to cost the employer more in the long run. I don't see the benefit...

Do not understand your second bullet, on aggregated basis does not Plan AB satisfy coverage at 70%+ w/o further action? PS allocations happen in each plan per each document but then cross-tested as Plan AB together, which creates a gateway under A where there wasn't one before.

What a neat idea! That there is a user fee specified for something suggests that the thing can be done.

The simple answer to the original question is "No!" The data belongs to the plan and is controlled by fiduciaries. Absent a regulatory REQUIREMENT, each and every client/fiduciary would have to consent, if not direct us to do so. I guarantee you some will say no, and others will not respond, and we don't want to track who has allowed it and who hasn't - so it's not a capability we intend (for now). Also, it's a lost and found that requires the participant to know, think, or at least suspect they have money, and then trust that the info is real and not a scam, and to be sure (I would, anyway) that my interaction with the database is secure. Nothing worse than finding lost money only to have someone eavesdropping and then taking that money.... Good idea. Very bad implementation.....

First of all, sorry to hear about your medical situation. Also, sorry to have to deal with the medical and health insurance side at the same time. That's always difficult. The good news is that you have an EBSA Benefits Advisor on the case and providing significant assistance. As long as the medical providers continue to provide services (fortunately the DOL was able to assist with that re the surgery), all the claims can be retroactively processed and paid correctly through COBRA if/when this issue gets resolved. The DOL can impose $110/day penalties. Even if there is some aspect of the situation that is somewhat more favorable to the employer's side that isn't mentioned here, at a minimum they failed to promptly provide the Notice of Termination as required. But generally the DOL will try to exhaust all efforts to resolve the issue informally without the need to take it the enforcement level If it doesn't get resolved. Absent the EBSA being able to satisfactorily resolve the issue, it sounds like you have an excellent case that any plaintiff side attorney should be salivating to take. That would allow you to pursue recovery of payment for any claims that should have been paid under the plan, plus "other relief" as the court deems proper. Again, an attorney would likely get creative here given the medical situation, etc.

I have a large client in MO. When this happens their ERISA attorney was comfortable to paying the heirs of the estate and by pass the estate. I am not a lawyer but it is my understanding is the small estate rules are designed to by pass having to file an estate return and other paperwork that can eat up all the value of a small estate. I would have the plan inquire with their lawyer to decide if the plan pay the people.

This is not the exact source I've seen before, but the Internal Revenue Manual warns agents to watch for impermissible CODAs in multiemployer MPPPs. IRM 7.11.6.6.10.2 (09-18-2015) CODAs in Money Purchase Plans (1)The only money purchase plans permitted to include a CODA are pre-ERISA plans (existed June 27, 1974 and included the CODA at that time). See IRC 401(k)(1). (2)Plans or CBAs may contain provisions that, although not described as a CODA, result in elective deferrals. Unless this arrangement is part of a profit-sharing plan and satisfies the requirements of IRC 401(k), the CODA isn't qualified. See IRC 401(k)(1). (3)Scrutinize multi-employer plans that incorporate tiered contribution or allocation formulas to determine whether these formulas provide an election. a.In most cases, when an employee changes classes/tiers, the plan makes an increased contribution and decreases the participant's wages by the same amount. b.If the participant may elect to reduce their wages and increase their contribution, then the plan is, in effect, a cash or deferred arrangement. (4)To detect this type of arrangement, read the language in the CBAs and in the plan. (5)If the language is incorporated by reference, be sure that the incorporation follows the rules of IRM 7.11.6.3, Incorporating Auxiliary Documents by Reference. (6)The tiered annuity contribution formula could also fail the definitely determinable rule of 26 CFR 1.401-1(b)(1)(i) if the tiers are determined by an individual or party other than the employee participant. The plan may not allow discretion for contributions to the plan, and the contribution must be the employees' decision. (7)If you find a post-ERISA money purchase plan with a CODA, disqualify the plan unless: a.It's an initial plan submitted within its first remedial amendment period and the plan is amended to remove the CODA. b.The taxpayer enters the Closing Agreement Program. See IRM 7.11.8, EP Determinations Closing Agreement Program. c.The taxpayer is entitled to IRC 7805(b) relief. (8)These arrangements are often difficult to detect and tend to be at least partially contained in the CBA. See IRM Exhibit 7.11.6-1, Sample Language of a CODA in a Money Purchase Plan, for sample language which may indicate that a CODA is present.

"A money purchase plan specifies a mandatory employer contribution of a fixed percent of pay for each employee. It is not a CODA and employees cannot make an election to change the percentage." This is really what I'm getting at. A MPPP cannot offer a CODA option, but some tried to get around this by allowing MPPP participants the option to have a lower contribution rate. I'm sure I've seen guidance that states this is a no-go, but I cannot find it at the moment.

This is going back a long way but I believe the 1986 Tax Reform Act first precluded elective defferrals in money purchase plans. I vaguely recall it was possible and sometimes done before the '86 Act.

A money purchase plan specifies a mandatory employer contribution of a fixed percent of pay for each employee. It is not a CODA and employees cannot make an election to change the percentage. If the plan is a CODA, the notion of a negative deferral election in a CODA was raised in Revenue Ruling 98-30 (see the attached article). Assuming a negative election is permissible, there is no need to structure a plan with an arcane provision that will confuse everyone. Design the plan with an auto-enrollment default of 10% and participant can make an affirmative elective to adjust the percentage up or down, including completing opting out. Negative elections Revenue Ruling 98-30.pdf