Currently working on a Plan Termination and discovered one of the participants is deceased. This participant terminated in 1993 and since then the plan changed recordkeepers. The participant had no activity on our recordkeeping system. The Plan Sponsor does not have record of this participant’s beneficiary, since it was so long ago.

Mail sent to the last address of record never was returned to sender, so there was no way of knowing he was deceased until we checked the SSDI.

We cannot open an IRA for this deceased participant, since there is no beneficiary information. We would like to close out this plan, but cannot. Any suggestions? Are we able to move the unclaimed property to the state?

Thanks.

Plan sponsor did not amend for EGTRRA and GUST and does not know if he initially adopted a TRA '86 document. My idea was to submit all three documents under VCP as a non-amender. My question is regarding the fee schedule for submission. There are between 51 and 100 participants in the plan. Is the fee $2,500 for all three documents or $2,500 for each document submitted under the program?

Thanks.

Does anyone know what steps are involved for a retirement plan to change TPAs?

I may be getting caught up on a technicality, but I am a sole-proprietor TPA firm. My fees are not like most TPA's. I do not charge to prepare the Form 945 (or 1099's for that matter). But I do prepare the Form 945 and 1099's for a few of my clients. The technicality that I am getting caught up on is "paid preparer". Since I am not technically paid to prepare it, do I still need to file for a PTIN?

Thoughts?

Thanks so much!

Requested verbally family leave to care for ill parent out-of-state. Request denied by immediate supervisor.

Yes, I've met all prerequisites having worked for the firm full-time for over 8 years. Confused!

What recourse do I have?

There's more to the rehired employee question that came up last week. I didn't have all the information then. An employee is rehired after an 11 year separation in September 2008. He was a participant when he left in 1997, but 0% vested. The current plan document (effective date of 10/1/08) says rehired employees who were participants when they left shall enter the plan immediately on the rehire date. The prior document that was in effect when the employee was rehired says that anyone gone 5 years or more shall have to meet the eligibility requirements (1 year of service) again. The current document took over just 3 weeks after the rehire date.

Naturally, the employer's position is that the document that was in effect on the rehire date should prevail. It turns out that the extra year's contribution is several thousand dollars, so I would like to get some thoughts from my peers. Thanks for your help.

8955 SSA What is column for check box after last name?

Can anyone tell me anything?

Is there any benefit to an ER setting up an FSA as opposed to an HRA for employer funding only? Employees will not be contributing at all. My feeling is that if its ER funds only, the plan should be set up as an HRA, but I don't know if this is correct. Any thoughts are appreciated.

Plan is just over 100 participants and is audited.

30-40 EEs will be moving to a new company - but it is part of a controlled group - same identical ownership.

Happening around 10/15.

1. Option 1 would be just to do a participating ER for the Prototype Doc and include all.

2. Option 2 would be to have new plan for the new company that would be identical. Both plans would be under 100 EE's thus avoiding the audit for 2012. Would have to combine testing for coverage. ADP test, top heavy etc.

When transferring the 30 EE's to the new plan - would you have to 100% vest or could you just transfer all of their balance over to the idential plan?

Anything else I need to worry about?

Thanks

Pat

A defined benefit plan sponsor will soon terminate the plan in a standard termination. Currently, the plan does not offer lump sum, other than small benefit cash-out lump sums. The sponsor would like to amend the plan at termination to allow vested terminated participants a limited time "window" opportunity to elect a lump sum distribution. So far, so good.

The issue is whether, in offering the lump sum election, must the vested terms also be allowed to elect a QJSA?

Treas. Reg. section 1.417(e)-1(b)(1) sure seems to require this result -- "A distribution cannot be made at any time in a form other than a QJSA unless such QJSA has been waived by the participant and such waiver has been consented to by the spouse" and "[T]he plan must also offer a QJSA . . . ."

It's certainly the case for an ongoing plan that is amended to offer a permanent or, in my view, a limited time window, lump sum election option.

Thanks.

I need a provider that will open an account for one participant and allow for an advisor. I'm hoping it will be under a custodial account arrangement...

small account ($3,500). the participant has no beneficiary or it appears next of kin. the plan says the account needs to be paid to the estate. does anyone know what the procedure is or have any experience with these payouts where there is no estate or next of kin to assist.

Member had COBRA with former employer, since 6/1/2010.

Effective 1/1/2011, from open enrollment period/rate chanes , Member dropped the dental plan and had a rate increase to medical plan.

However when Member went to pay via the on-line COBRA payment for 1/1/2011--the old premium was still on-line and not the updated rates.

This continued for 2/1,3/1,4/1,5/1,6/1--all COBRA premium letters still stated premium error from carrier.

On 5/27, a staff member from the insurance broker for this group contact member to advised the premium was being billed in error via phone.

8/1 and 9/1 premiums payments was parsed out to cover the back premium due(1/1/11-7/31/11) coverage was terminated effect 7/31/2011 & Member was sent a $92.75 refund check.

My coverage should still be in effect--the premium should never have been parsed for back amounts--YOU never advised me in writing of the error and under Federal law, you can only go back and fix the error from the quarter when the error was discovered hence 6/1/2011 at best.

The Member still was under the impression given the 81 and 9/1 payments were accepted that coverage was still in effect--they did not know coverage was terminated until the refund check was sent 9/21/11 and the Certificate of Prior Coverage was sent 9/22.

Should the Member have coverage re-instated and just be back billed only to 6/1/2011?

Should premium have been applied as far back as 1/1/11 with the 8/1 and 9/1 checks from Member without advising the Member?

What are the legal issues here?

Thanks

filling out paperwork for new plan as we speak. getting tons of conflicting info between broker dealer, provider etc.

plan: 401k safe harbor. one owner, one employee. have reqs. age 21, 1 yr, 1000 hours on plan.

the employee will reach his one year of service in early oct 2011. plan entry dates are jan/july 1. so next possible entry date for him is jan 1 2012.

plan starting now, all docs signed and dated today, will send notice to the employee, so we are within the 90 days.

must he get safe harbor contrib for 2011? some say yes since he's eligible, some say no since he's not yet entered into plan and the entry date matters also.

have googled it extensively but find no reference to entry dates....

Managament Co. provides management services to several restaurants. Trying to determine which companies should be part of a management group.

Management Co. Owned 100% by Person 1

Co. A Owned 85% by Person 1; 15% by Person 2

Co. B Owned 35% by Person 1; 35% by Person 2; 30% by Person 3

Co. C Owned 100% by Person 1's sibling

Co. D Owned 50% by Person 4 and 50% by Person 5

Co. E Owned 25% by Person 1 and 75% by Person 1's sibling (Different sibling from the Co. C owner)

Assume Management Co. derives 20% of its revenue from each co. If that assumption is correct then I think the Management Co., Co. A, Co. C and Co. E would be part of the group. I can include Co. A, Co. C and Co. E because siblings are family under §267.

I do not see that I could include Co. B or Co. D. Person 1 would need 50% onwership to bring Co. B into the group & Co. D's owners are unrelated.

Am I analyzing this correctly?

Thanks in advance for any guidance.

recently one of our clients was audited by the DOL and accused of getting its deferrals in to the plan in 12 calendar days. the labor department deemed 7 business days as reasonable. the client is a small employer. i am aware of the recent DOL safe harbor of 7 business days but this was released in 2010. as anyone been successful arguing for a few extra days for periods prior to the safe harbor being released?

I just talked to Relius support and they said the IRS has the testing part of the FIRE system turned off until November. so they are planning on releasing the version we want in January 2012. It will be the 2012 form 8955 SSA.

I have a client who has six employees. They do not offer health insurance because they are so small. Four of the six are covered by their spouse's plan. For the remaining two employees, they want to reimburse them for the health insurance premiums they are paying up to $100 a month.

Is this discriminatory? The other four are paying for insurance through their spouse's plan. One person at the client is arguing that anyone who can offer proof that they are paying for health insurance should get the reimbursement. Another only wants to pay the two who aren't covered by another policy.

Any suggestions where to find guidance on such matters? HR matters I guess.

THanks!

I must be missing something in the 408(b)(2) interim final regulations and hope someone can set me straight. Is a bank that is providing custodial services to a covered plan a "covered service provider" where it is paid either by the plan sponsor or from the custody account? The reg seems to provide that a custodian would be a CSP only if it receives "indirect compensation." Compensation paid out of the custodial account seem to be direct compensation [paid by the plan], and compensation paid by the plan sponsor is (oddly enough) neither direct, nor indirect compensation.

What am I missing?

I am a new HR employee for a plan sponsor whose retirement plans are in a "multi-vendor environment." There are three investment companies whose funds are available; one of them is designated as the master record-keeper but there are various logistical problems with that arrangement so there is no central source for the employer to obtain information. Vendor X's lifecycle fund family is designated as our QDIA--the actual default fund depends upon the participant's DOB.

Participants who make no election are placed in the Vendor X lifecycle fund, which is fine. However, I have discovered that some participants designate Vendor Y or Vendor Z as their investment provider of choice, but then do not proceed to name a fund. If the vendor receives a contribution from us with no investment instructions, it defaults into its own lifecycle funds, not the Vendor X fund that is designated as our official QDIA.

Does anyone besides me think that is a problem? It seems to me that we need to a) retrieve the money from Vendor Y or Z if there are no instructions and invest it with Vendor X, b) track down the participant to get a Vendor Y or Z fund designation, or c) add the Vendor Y and Z lifecycle funds as "official" QDIAs.

The answer to this question affects the content of our QDIA notice as well as who provides it. There has been some discussion of having the vendors provide the Notice, but is it fair to Vendors Y and Z to ask them to send out notices describing the Vendor X funds?

Any thoughts are welcome. Thanks!