Leaderboard

What, none of you had to import a program basically via tape recorder and cassette like on a Commodore Vic-20? (Could be a computer program on there, could be VH taped off the radio....)

FYI they were even 8" floppies way back in the day. You can see one in the movie WarGames. (Shall we play a game?)

You (or we) are missing something. Is "he" the participant? What "remaining benefits" are you referring to? (Is this a divorce/QDRO question?) "Value" from whose perspective? To answer your question directly, there s/b a relative value disclosure with the election form. That said, typically, the QPSA and QOSA are relatively equal in value from the participant's perspective. However, from the spouses perspective, 75% of something is obviously a bigger number than 50% of something, even though those somethings are slightly different.

I was in undergrad when that movie came out. A friend of mine got a student job in the computer operations room. He had access to the system that was more than maybe you should give to a student. All the workers came to work one morning and the first message they got on their work terminal was: Do you want to play a game? How about Thermal Nuclear War?

The first computer I used in the workforce after graduating college in 1983 was a Wang (maybe a 2200) with an 8" floppy drive that we used to save some Basic programs we wrote to show some illustrations to clients. Fun stuff.

Had a similar issue a few years back, but much bigger in scope. A well known ERISA attorney told us to just file the forms now. Paraphrasing, but the answer was "since there is no way to cure a late filing, just file and explain the reason if (big if) they ask any questions". Like you assumed, they are very accommodating since there is no correction program. In my opinion, these penalties were never meant to be collected in the first place ($150k for a late 5500?), they are just there to make the DC math work for new legislation.

I agree with Ernie G and Peter Gulia. The Plan Administrator role is much more than just signing the Form 5500. The Plan Administrator is legally responsible and liable for the operation of the plan and is a fiduciary to the plan. If there were to be an IRS or DOL audit or review, the PA is the one who would be the hot seat, so to speak. Anyone who is taking on this role should be aware of their fiduciary responsibilities. Most service providers in our industry do not take on a fiduciary role with the plan and instead perform ministerial functions at the direction of the fiduciary. There are service providers who will take on the PA role and that will be clearly defined in any service agreement and most likely in the plan document. As far as other things that need to be done to change the Plan Administrator, I would look at your Plan Document and previous 5500s to determine if the company is named or an individual is named. You may need a change to the document and/or SPD. If an individual is named in the Plan Document and/or on previous 5500 forms, you may also need to file Form 8822-B with the IRS. As always, checking board minutes, etc. is always advisable. There should be something official that says who is authorized to act on behalf of the plan. These can become really important in the event of a fiduciary breach and any fidelity bond/fiduciary liability insurance the plan may have.

This is a function that may be outsourced, and it is more than just signing the Form 5500. The Plan Administrator is responsible for the day-to-day operation of the Plan. Our recommendation to business owners, who are not in the business of running a Qualified Retirement Plan, is to outsource this function. While the business owner continues to be liable for the actions of the choosing an outsourced Plan Administrator, they are relieved of those day-to-day operational issues.

Not 5 1/4 floppy's? Fancy stuff!

The relief the IRS describes seems available if, with other conditions, “the amendment is adopted no later than the last day of the first plan year [sic] beginning on or after January 1, 2025[.]” IRS, Miscellaneous Changes Under the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022, Notice 2024-2, 2024–2 I.R.B. 316, 331 [middle column] (Jan. 8, 2024), https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-irbs/irb24-02.pdf. (I’m not aware that the IRS published further relief.) Before considering a due date for a plan amendment, consider whether the employer needs or wants an amendment. Many plan-design features from SECURE 2019 and SECURE 2022 are not available for nongovernmental § 457(b) plans. A plan’s document before December 2019 might state distribution provisions that meet all § 401(a)(9) conditions, even after considering all SECURE 2019 and SECURE 2022 changes. An ERISA-governed select-group plan not governed by ERISA § 206 need not recognize domestic-relations orders, and so need not recognize a Native American Indian tribe’s order. If the plan allows an employee to elect a deferral and allows such an election more often than yearly, an employer might amend its plan to undo a provision that “compensation will be deferred for any calendar month only if an agreement providing for such deferral has been entered into before the beginning of such month[.]”

Wonder if I have a copy of Foxbase sitting around? Have you upgraded to the 3.5 inch diskettes? I think there’s 23 of them. 😇

But consider reminding your client that there might be internal records of the company’s resolutions, consents, and other acts. Those records might document which humans have which responsibilities in acting for the company. The company, or an individual, might prefer that those records state accurately who’s responsible for what. And if someone thinks it’s merely a tedious housekeeping chore, consider that these company records might affect the company’s indemnity obligations and an individual’s indemnity rights.

If the plan uses one of the major TPA/recordkeepers, they should be able to handle the earnings calculations. They do it all the time. I assume you have asked them. Assuming you did and they said they can’t do it, then the big questions are whether the majority of the affected participants are NHCEs and was there an overall gain in plan investments during for the period of correction? If the answer to both is yes, you do not have to do any earnings calculations. First, note that you have to make sure you are looking at the right way to calculate earnings. Under EPCRS, corrections that require a reduction of a participant’s account balance have different rules for determining earnings than corrections that require a contribution/allocation to plan accounts. Here, you are reducing a participant’s account so you use (or first start with) those rules. If the majority of affected participants are NHCEs and there has been an overall gain for the period of correction, an adjustment for earnings is not required for the affected participants. If the plan sponsor decides it wants to remove the earnings from participant accounts, the reduction to the account balances may be adjusted by the lowest rate of return of any fund available for the correction period for administrative convenience. Hopefully, the plan sponsor will not want to do this but at least you should be able to determine that fund. However, if the majority of affected participants are not NHCEs (i.e., HCEs) or there has been an overall loss for the period of correction, reductions to earnings may be required for corrections (and using the lowest rate of return is not permitted). EPCRS doesn’t address losses in earnings for corrective distributions or reductions in a participant’s account balance. The common view is that the safest method to calculate earnings in such instances is to make corrective distributions or reductions in account balances without adjustment for negative losses in earnings if the majority of the participants affected are HCEs. (So the affected participant is funding the loss. That is, you take the full amount of the overcontribution and don't offset it for any loss.) If most of the participants affected are NHCEs, a plan sponsor may choose to apply the loss in earnings to the amount to be recovered (i.e., the Company will fund the loss, which is what we normally do if it is NHCEs, but the problem here is you have to determine the loss so the plan sponsor would not choose to apply the loss and thus make the participants fund that loss). When the majority of affected participants are HCEs we go back to the earnings calculation rules for corrections that require a contribution/allocation. Distilling the rules based on a majority of affected participants being HCEs and assuming, because you state there are 10 investments, that the plan allows participant direction of investments, it would be best to use the actual rates of return for the period of correction. Alas, the instant TPA cannot make that calculation. Our rule is never to use the CFVCP calculator... If the affected participants are primarily HCEs, of course, they will want to use the DFVCP calculator, as it actually gives really low earnings (at least from our experience)). That said, be careful when you start to get into the administrative convenience rules or the rules that allow you to use alternative methods as you have to show various things. For instance, to use the DFVCP calculator that it is not feasible to make a reasonable estimate of what the actual investment results would have been. If this is the way you go, you should require the TPA to memorialize all the reasons as to why it is not feasible for them not to be able to do it. Our concern is that feasibility will be from the perspective of the IRS not ours. If it is a $9M question (and not hyperbole), you may wish to go to VCP. Like it says below… Just my thoughts…

Most employers will just stop employee pre-tax HSA elections for any period of unpaid leave. If the employee wants to contribute, they can always do by making direct contributions to the HSA custodian. When the employee returns in year two, the HSA contribution election (if any) will be for year two. There is also no requirement to continue employer HSA contributions while on leave. Even where it is a protected leave subject to FMLA (or a state equivalent) that requires continuation of the HDHP, no such requirement applies to the HSA because it is not an employer-sponsored plan. More details: https://www.newfront.com/blog/employer-hsa-contributions-during-protected-leave-2 2025 Newfront Health Benefits While on Leave Guide