I know there are probably hundreds (thousands?) of plans out there just like this, but I can't see how a VCP filing is going to even come close to fixing this. I'm less concerned about the ancient document, because I think the IRS has addressed the non-amender issue. I'm more concerned that we can't go back to see if there were employees who worked enough years/hours that should have been covered. Then, we've got to beg the DOL to forgive the lack of 5500 filings, and there is no DFVC program for a one-person plan that probably shouldn't have been a one-person plan anyway. I'm afraid of opening a can or worms. I would love to hear how other retirement plan professionals would handle this.

Anyone else having trouble with the site identifying new posts? It doesn't seem to be remembering what posts I have already read and which ones are new. The only way to get it to clear is when I click "treat all posts as read".

Is it just me or are others having this problem?

A business owner who sponsors a 401(k) Plan dies. He designated his two children as the beneficiaries. The two children work for the business and are participants in the Plan. Can they rollover the distribution from their father's account into the Plan? The plan allows rollover contributions.

I've been given an ESOP that hasn't been touched since it timely restated and filed as a Cycle A filing in 2007. The plan has not been touched since then. It has not been amended, nothing. So it has now missed its Cycle A restatement and filing deadline on 1/31/12. I am currently restating the plan using Sungard Relius. Will a restatement typically incorporate all of the required amendments? Or do they need to be tack-on amendments? Also, I am trying to get a handle on the proper procedure for correcting through EPCRS. Do I file under Appendix F, Schedule 1?

Thanks for any guidance for a relative newbie.

An employer has had a new comparability plan with a safe harbor 401k feature (nonelective 3% of pay contribution from the employer) for a few years.

He has given much thought to it, and proposes that in addition to descriptive language in the SPD covering both of the following, the HR person would:

(1) personally counsel each new employee that is age 40 or older before his or her plan entry date that he or she has the option to sign a one-time, irrevocable election out of all plans of the employer and receive a 5% of pay raise in lieu of plan participation, and

(2) give all employees when signing up for 401k elective deferrals a written explanation that if he instead chooses to make a contribution to an IRA, it may yet be tax deductible and the employee would have more control over the investments and more withdrawal access, not being subject to the distribution restrictions on 401k benefits.

Any problems?

An employer is thinking about bringing an MD-DO-PA-LPN one day a week for employees to go to as an alternative to making GP type doctor's office visits.

Would this be providing major medical coverage, deficient per ObamaCare?

What concerns are there if it were provided as part of one of two major medical packages provided by the employer to its employees? One package includes access tp the visiting health practitioner at no co-pay charge to the employee, at one price to employees for coverage, and the other package not including access to the health practitioner, coverage that costs the employee more and visits to doctor's offices carry a co-pay obligation for the employee?

Is the employer exposed to liability for malpractice of the visiting health care practitioner?

Potential plan has 28 employees. Sole owner has daughter/son working. They are the only 3 HCE's. Fails ADP. When using Top Paid Election, the son/daughter are excluded correct, unless their income falls in Top 20%?

We have an ESOP that covers a Canadian employee. She is on maternity leave. She did not work 1,000 hours. The plan requires one to credit someone on maternity leave with enough hours to avoid a break in service. But you aren't required to give enough hours to put her over 1,000 hours if she did not work it. But they are telling us Canadian law requires us to give her a contribution.

What do you do when another countries laws appear to require you to violate the terms of the plan?

Anyone ever work with them? Pros Cons?? I have a plan that is being courted by an advisor that wants to use Alerus Open Architecture. This is a small plan, 25 participants 1 mil in assets, 401(k) participant directed. I'm proposing one of the Insurance Companies. Feel free to email me privately if you would rather. I have no background with them and am very hesitant. Also, seems they look fully bundled and I"m a TPA so not sure if the advisor is trying to oust me.

Can a plan be amended to remove a lump sum distribution right for participants who have termianted employment but are not currently entitled to commence distributions (for example, until the following year) without violating the anti-cutback rule? The new distribution rules would comply with section 409(o).

Section 411(d)(6)© permits the modification of a plan's distribution options in a nondiscriminatory manner. The regulations are more specific and include the condition that the elimination of a lump sum benefit apply with respect to all participants.

Does this also allow benefit commencement to be delayed in accordance with 409(o)? Does it matter whether a participant has satisfied the other conditions for benefit commencement, such as having terminated employment?

What is everyone doing for the notice? Attaching a separate fund sheet for each target date fund? I know some providers have one sheet that cover all the target date funds, but not all do so.

Bob works for Company A who in turn performs a management function for Company B. As a result, both companies are related. Bob is paid by Company A and participates in Company B's retirement plan.

Effective 7/1/12, the management function ceases and both companies are no longer related and Bob is no longer a participant under Company B's retirement plan. Bob wants to take a distribution from Company B. Ideally he wants to roll the assets to Company A who has a retirement plan.

IT would seem that according to Notice 2002-4 (part III) as well as GSM 39824, he is considered to have severance of employment due to the change in the controlled group status. My confusion relates to another "requirement" which is that no assets of the plan follow the participant by being transferred to a plan maintained by the participant's employer.... That would seem to indicate that he can take a distribution and roll his account to any IRA, just not the Company A retirement plan....thoughts? Let me now if more information is needed.

Bob works for Company A who in turn performs a management function for Company B. As a result, both companies are related. Bob is paid by Company A and participates in Company B's retirement plan.

Effective 7/1/12, the management function ceases and both companies are no longer related and Bob is no longer a participant under Company B's retirement plan. Bob wants to take a distribution from Company B. Ideally he wants to roll the assets to Company A who has a retirement plan.

IT would seem that according to Notice 2002-4 (part III) as well as GSM 39824, he is considered to have severance of employment due to the change in the controlled group status. My confusion relates to another "requirement" which is that no assets of the plan follow the participant by being transferred to a plan maintained by the participant's employer.... That would seem to indicate that he can take a distribution and roll his account to any IRA, just not the Company A retirement plan....thoughts? Let me now if more information is needed.

A church's HDHP plan has a $5,000 deductible. They have one employee, the pastor, who is technically self-employed as pastor's generally are, but self-employed for tax withholding purposes.

The employer (the church) has adopted an HSA plan and has decided to contribute $5,000 toward that in 2013. Is this allowable? If so, how/when should the $5,000 be deposited into the HSA account? Can the employer deposit the entire $5,000 in January 2013? If they do, what issues could arise?

I'm looking at a CB plan for my client and we have some potential RMDs, and it appears that they will want to take annuities. I'd like to make sure that I am thinking of the initial and annual recalculations correctly.

They also do not issue SOB Notices, so I'd like to confirm what I suspect is the calculation methodology going forward.

RMDs

Accrued Benefit is of course defined as the SLA of the AE of the account balance (subject to prior plan min benefits). Plan has frozen service accruals.

I believe what I want to do for the initial RMD is calculate the SLA as of the 12/31 prior to the Req Beginning Date, based on age and assumptions applicable at that date, and assume that that would be my initial RMD. Let's call the 12/31 balance A and the SLA that X. I would grow A with investment credits for the year, back out 9 months of payments of X (without interest), and annuitize using age and assumptions applicable at the 12/31 after the initial RMD began; let's call this Y. Y can be less than X. I don't believe I have to actuarially increase X to age at Y and compare to Y, like I may have to in a late retirement calculation as described below. This iterative process would go on annually. If ee takes a lump sum at initial RBD, they would simply get their Account Balance.

Late Retirement without SOB Notices

Client also has not made it a practice of issuing SOB Notices to those coming up on NRA. I think here I would calculate ABs at NRD and subsequent EOYs until commencement. At the 12/31 after NRA, I would compare the AE of the AB calcd at NRA to the AB at 12/31 after NRA and take the greater of the two as the AB as of 12/31 after age 65. Then at the following 12/31, again compare the AE of the winning AB from the prior 12/31 to the AB at the current 12/31 and store for future use. (I would use age and assumptions applicable at each date for these calculations.) Continue this iterative process until commencement and/or RBD.

Any thoughts on these questions would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks much

Forgive me for placing this post in this forum but the Relius forum doesn't seem to get as much activity. I can make a reasonable argument that it belongs here anyway so here goes:

We use Relius for daily val. Now that there are such stringent requirements for electronic delivery of 404a5 notices, to fully comply with the letter of the law, it would be easiest to mail statements. Dealing with electronic delivery to terminated participants is very difficult. So I am looking for a printing company where I can batch send my Relius statements and they can print, fold, stuff, stamp and mail out. There must be other recordkeepers that do this. Potentially, I can use this for my annual 404a5, QDIAs, SH notices, etc. as well.

Does anyone have any ideas? Thanks.

I'm working with a takeover client whose understanding of their existing plan provisions is consistently proving to be incorrect. Among other things, the HR director told us that it was not a safe harbor plan, and that the owner could not defer. The document clearly shows that it has a basic safe harbor match. Further discussion with the HR director brought up the fact that, for tax purposes, the business owner is a resident of Puerto Rico. He maintains homes in both Kansas and Puerto Rico and works part of the year from each location, but his primary residence is Puerto Rico.

I know there are a number of different rules about Puerto Rico plans, but I'm having a hard time finding information about US plans covering Puerto Rico residents. Other than the lower deferral limit, can anyone point me to information that I need for this situation? Does the work done while in Puerto Rico need to be treated differently than the work in Kansas, or is it strictly based on where the participant files their taxes?

Notice 2012-58 describes safe harbor methods for determining if variable hour and seasonal employees worked an average of 30 hours per week or 130 hours per month, to meet the requirement of no more than a 90 day waiting period for plan years starting on or after 1/1/2014.

I'm wondering if an employer with a calendar year plan year can use a Standard Measurement Period and Administration Period for ongoing employees that doesn't end on 12/31/2013. Are they able to use a Standard Measurement Period that starts in 2013 and ends in 2014?

I have been working for a company for the past 7 years. I am considered part-time because I only work 30 hours a week. I knew the company had a 401K Plan but didn't think I could participate because I was never notified by my employer that I was eligible and never invited to attend 401K Plan Meetings. Quite the opposite, I was instructed to answer phones while the rest of the employees went to the meeting. It wasn't until a few days ago that the Financial Advisor came into the office to meet with newly eligible employees that I thought to ask what the eligibility requirements were. To my surprise I was told the only criteria was to have completed 6 months of employment. There was absolutely no hourly requirement. I was devasted at the realization that I had lost thousands of dollars in savings, tax advantages, investment increases, and company matching funds.

I notified the President of my company, via e-mail, that I was extremely disappointed in having been deprived the opportunity to participate and that I was never informed of my eligibility. He replied that he was sorry for the misunderstanding and was consulting with the plan advisor and would get back to me. He advised that I fill out the enrollment form and hand them into HR as soon as practical.

My questions are....

1. What correction is my employer required to make?

2. Should I wait for my employer to make this correction before I enroll in the 401K Plan as he has directed me do?

3. Am I required to report this violation to the Dept. of Labor?

4. Should I consult with an attorney before I meet with my employer?

Thank you for any help or guidance you can provide.

I need to do a document correction on a plan subject to 409A. The problem is there are some noncompliant definitions, including a definition of Change in Control. For simplicity, we'll pretend that is the only error.

I can correct by amending the definition of Change in Control. So long as a Change in Control under the bad definition does not occur and trigger payment within a certain time period thereafter, I'm golden.

Here's the rub: The employee has already been paid out. But he hasn't been paid out under Change in Control, so there is no issue there.

I don't see anything in the correction procedures that says the employee can't be paid out already. The correction seems to comply with the requirements -- the definition will be changed and no Change in Control under the bad definition will trigger payment. But does this violate some other rule or the "spirit" of the correction in some way?

Is it too late to correct?