Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 10/15/2025 in all forums

  1. If the plan covered a nonowner employee or former employee during some part of the to-be-reported-on year, was the plan ERISA-governed (for at least that part of the year)? ERISA § 3(1)-(3), 29 U.S.C. § 1002(1)-(3); 29 C.F.R. § 2510.3-3 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-29/section-2510.3-3 If so, wouldn’t the plan’s administrator continue reporting on Form 5500-SF, at least until reporting the first year that has no coverage of any nonowner (at any time during the to-be-reported-on year)?
    4 points
  2. We have always taken the position that if at any time during the plan year the plan covered common law employees we would file Form 5500 or SF. We only file 5500-EZ if it covered only EZ eligible employees for the entire year. That has been our interpretation and is not legal advice to anyone. As for filing of the Form 5500-EZ under $250K that would be a client decision but be ready for an IRS letter and explanation if you've been filing Form 5500-SF and suddenly have no filings in the next year.
    2 points
  3. Assuming John and Joe don't have ownership in ABC that might change this, it does not appear to be a controlled group between A and B under §414(b). The ABC company does not own at least 80% of Company A for a parent-subsidiary group to exist. Though it would for 415 limits, since the at least 80 is replaced by more than 50/ So if A & B have separate plans you still have 415 aggregation but no other aggregation. ABC would be a parent-sub of B, but not A.
    2 points
  4. The HSA rules have little in common with the HRA rules because the HRA is an ERISA employer-sponsored group health plan. That said, HRAs are almost almost always unfunded notional accounts that are bookkeeping entries paid from the employer's general assets. In that overwhelming majority situation, there really isn't such thing as a mistaken HRA contribution. I suppose you could have a funded trust account HRA, which would be different. In that case there are probably plan/trust terms governing how to address overcontributions. It's possible you're referring to the much more common issue of mistaken HRA distributions. In that case, I recommend following the health FSA (not HSA) framework: https://www.newfront.com/blog/correcting-improper-health-fsa-payments
    2 points
  5. You have not explained who owns which percentages of ABC Company. That would be needed to make a determination.
    1 point
  6. The lack of explicit guidance makes this subject to individual interpretation. Here are some approaches I have seen used where the benchmark is one of these: identified in each Fund Fact Sheet (readily retrieved with an online search using the fund symbol) published by Morningstar published on the mutual fund family's web site available from an investment analysis that a financial advisor made available Notably for target date funds, it is not uncommon for a mutual fund to provide a benchmark that is a blend of other benchmarks (e.g., 60% S&P 500 + 40% Russell 2000). It also is not uncommon for a mutual fund family to define its own benchmarks (which somehow happen to wind up presenting the fund performance in a better light than other published indices).
    1 point
  7. https://www.asppa-net.org/news/2024/9/plan-amendment-deadlines-extended-but-still-obligatory/ Per ASPPA - 12/31/2026
    1 point
This leaderboard is set to New York/GMT-05:00
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use