What should a company do if it sends distribution materials to a terminated vested participant prior to the participant reaching age 65 and the participant does not respond? Does 401(a)(14) require distribution to begin or can the company rely on the provision in the regulation that says "notwithstanding the preceding sentence, a plan may require that a participant file a claim for benefits before payment of benefits will commence" and not begin payment until the participant applies or reaches age 70 1/2 - whichever comes first? (The plan says that benefits must begin at age 65, But also requires participants to file an application in order to receive benefits.) Thanks!

Are people going nuts trying to get clients to signh the hard-copy by 10/15, or taking it on faith that if they efiled by 10/15, and subsequently sign the hard-copy they should be all set as long as its within a couple of days?

Generally, or course, not an issue but on 10/15 it becomes an iomportant question!

We have a participant over age 70.5, non-owner, who worked part of the 2010 year, can she still opt out of taking her RMD for 2010 or does she have to be active at the end of the year?

Does anyone know of any circumstances under which an employer can offer a SIMPLE-IRA to one class of employees and a 401(k) profit sharing plan to a second class of employees? This is a single employer with one tax ID number.

Does anyone know of an IFILE work around that would allow a paid preparer to sign the 5500, but still have the true plan administrator's name show up on the box on the right hand side of the page?

According to customer service at EFAST2 (which was actually great) there is no way around, this but I just thought I would check.

We have several defined contribution plans for which contributions have been frozen. We listed this as one of the plan attributes on the 5500 (Line 8a contains 1I).

We have filed the 2009 5500 with DOL and they have been accepted but with errors. The error code is B-674, "Schedule R, Line 13a cannot be blank when Form 5500, Line A is checked and 5500, Line 8a contains "1x"(Defined Benefit Plan) and Form 5500, Line 7 is less than 20.

I called EFAST2 and they said it was an IRS issue and to call them. I gave up after over 2 hours of holding.

The DOL has accepted these filings but we will need to file an amended return to deal with this error. Anyone see this yet? Or, have an answer?

Thanks.

Gary

I had to export a few plans from RGF and import to IFILE, which was a breeze. And getting the client to sign was also a breeze, because everything was at the same site, and not to metnion the DOL's site is holding up very very well.

The invitation proicess worked out perfectly, simple and efficient. The only down side is the lack of reporting on a firm level, but we might be able to work around that by saving the confirm emails for comprehensive pre-deadline checks, which we always did anyway.

Any thoights from anyone else??

I've looked everywhere for guidance or some sort of procedures on this issue:

Governmental 401(a) plan is not a qualified retirement plan for Social Security purposes.

No Section 218 agreement in place.

FICA taxes therefore being paid on contributions to plan.

How might the plan be converted into a qualified 401(a) plan, which would then eliminate the FICA taxation of contributions? Can it be done? If so, what are the procedures for doing so? And what is the authority permitting this to be done?

Any assistance pointing me in the right direction would be much appreciated!

I wasn't sure where to post this, but we are a small company and have had a handful of problem clients and have not received any info for a couple of plan years.

Is there a proper procedure to follow when deciding to resign with those clients? What should be or needs to be sent in order to begin the process of getting rid of these problem clients?

Hi All

I was curious to know if there is a statute of limitations to contact court ordered attorney for a QDRO?

The separation agreement is worded:

.......................The division of the Husband's pension shall be done by way of a QDRO. All costs associated with the preparation and filing of the QDRO to be shared equally between the parties. The parties shall engage the services of Attorney xxxxxxx xxxxxxx to complete the QDRO and to carry the terms of this paragraph. Attorney xxxxxxxx's fees and costs shall be split equally between the parties. .........

OK divorce 1/27/10

State: Connecticut

Said husband asked said ex-wife at least 8 times if she was ready to follow that paragraph-in other words contact (maybe), pay one half the expenses (definitely). She never really answered and to this day shows no interest in contacting the attorney, paying 1/2, and getting it done.

Said husband tried for at least 3 months-he feels that he has done his due diligence and therefore does not plan on bringing up the subject again. Oh the ex wants that money, but appears too lazy to make any arrangements.

My question after all this is-is there a statute of limitations for contacting and payment to the attorney?

I understand the admin. or attorney in this case has to act in timely mannor, but what about one of the 2 parties involve in separation agreement?

Sorry for the lenght, but thanks in advance.

Mr. Thompson would like to join his wife's insurance plan. His company wants a way to reimburse him for the difference in the insurance premium. (She pays $150 per month, and adding him would be a total of $350, so a $200 difference.) My understanding is that a PRA reimburses for an individually owned insurance plan, not something that is employer sponsored. Anything else they could look into?

Can you obtain the AckID from within Ifile, or is it necessary to screen print each of those pop-up boxes that indicates the ackid?

Unincorporated client sponsors both a DB and a PS. PS plan provides for the 5% top heavy minimum. Calendar plan and fiscal years. Client says they will contribute (x) for 2009, which is substantially higher than the 5% TH minimum. At a later date, LONG after the tax filing deadline, says they decided not to contribute to the PS plan. (Not realizing/understanding that the 5% isn't discretionary in this case.) Client did NOT have a tax extension for 2009, so filing date was 4/15/10. So they are now contributing within the next 30 days, and DEDUCTING for the fiscal year in which paid - that is, 2010.

So here's the question: under the 415 regulations, in order to be considered "allocated" for 2009 - the contribution must be made within 30 days after the end 404(a)(6) period.

(B) Date of employer contributions. For purposes of this paragraph (b), employer contributions are not treated as credited to a participant's account for a particular limitation year unless the contributions are actually made to the plan no later than 30 days after the end of the period described in section 404(a)(6) applicable to the taxable year with or within which the particular limitation year ends. If, however, contributions are made by an employer exempt from Federal income tax (including a governmental employer), the contributions must be made to the plan no later than the 15th day of the tenth calendar month following the end of the calendar year or fiscal year (as applicable, depending on the basis on which the employer keeps its books) with or within which the particular limitation year ends. If contributions are made to a plan after the end of the period during which contributions can be made and treated as credited to a participant's account for a particular limitation year, allocations attributable to those contributions are treated as credited to the participant's account for the limitation year during which those contributions are made.

With no tax extension, does this mean that in order to be considered "allocated" for 2009, it must be made by 30 days after 4/15, since there is no tax extension? Or, can the phrase "no later than 30 days after the end of the period described in section 404(a)(6) applicable to the taxable year with or within which the particular limitation year ends" be considered to include the 404(a)(6) period that would have been available if there was a tax extension?

I choose to employ the latter interpretation, but it does seem a bit gray to me, and I wondered what others thought. The former just seems to arrive at a ridiculous and unreasonable result.

We happened to read Section 6.6 of the McKay Hochman prototype db document and realized it contained what we thought was distressing language. Distressing primarily because we never knew it was there.

6.6 Eligibility For Death BenefitsThe Plan need not provide a pre-retirement death benefit, other than a qualified pre-retirement survivor annuity for the benefit of either the Spouse of a married Participant or for the benefit of a former Spouse under the provisions of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Additional incidental pre-retirement death benefits may be provided for by the Employer in the Adoption Agreement. Except as provided below for Participants who are employed after attaining the Qualified Early Retirement Age (as defined in paragraph 1.72), unless the Employer provides for an additional incidental death benefit, no benefit will be payable to the Designated Beneficiary of an unmarried active or terminated Participant who dies prior to Normal Retirement Age, even though such Participant may have had a vested and nonforfeitable interest in a deferred benefit payable at Normal Retirement Age. Notwithstand¬ing the above, a Participant who is employed after attaining the Qualified Early Retirement Age shall be given the opportunity to elect to have a Qualified Joint and Survivor Annuity or one of the optional forms of payment, become effective upon his or her death. To the extent that it is not in conflict with the provisions of Article VII, such election shall be made during the period beginning on the later of the 90th day prior to the Participant's attainment of the Qualified Early Retirement Age or on the date on which participation begins and ends on the date the Participant actually retires or terminates employment. The Plan may require a minimum not to exceed $1,000 before it will provide or increase an insured death benefit.

So, the appears to imply that even if the plan coded the death benefit to be the minimum REA QJSA (J&50 - spouse only), that upon the attainment of Early Retirement age, ANY participant can elect a different death benefit. Therefore, a single employee can elect a lump sum (assuming that is an available option) death benefit. If that is true, it becomes impossible to use McKay Hochman prototype for a sponsor that only wants the minimum death benefit.

Do McKay Hochman users provide election forms for participants attaining early retirement age? Could the estate sue the plan if they don't make this clear to the participants? "If dad would have known he could have elected a death benefit, he certainly would have elected a lump sum"

Anyone else familiar with this provision?

Form reading a few other threads it sounds like others are having the same problem we are with Sundgard - not timely returning any calls for government forms support.

It is very irritating to say the least. We had several plans fail yesterday when e-filing, kind of stressful being the 13th and all and still haven't gotten a call back from Relius. Fortunately it was the 13th and not the 15th and the problem seems to have cleard today and we were able to file our last 3 remaining plans.

We once switched from then Corbel to Hyperprep over a similar issue one year but Sungard just went out and bought up Hyperprep a few years later and we got sucked back in. I'm wondering if we should change again next year?

Question for people using other government forms software, what has been your experience with them for ease of filing, helpfulness of support and timeliness of return calls, when software is initially available, ease of using program, etc.?

Any thoughts (possibly after the 15th I understand) would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.

I am just beginning the process of terminating a DB with excess assets and want to let the client know what to expect as far as timing. Does anyone have any experience with requesting a determination upon termination since the advent of the cycle program?

I did a quick search of this forum and apologize if this is addressed elsewhere, but I am looking for relatively current info.

Thank you!

I wanted to ask what would be a ballpark estimate of the time it takes to draft and prepare a streamlined EPCRS submission (generally speaking to predict an attoney's fees). I know there are a few that take much longer due to getting information from an employer of investment manager...., but what is a range for most of them? Also, what is the longest one it took you to prepare?

Thanks.

Use Relius Gov't Forms and Web Client. Received an error while trying to upload the attachments in Relius (other attachment with the signed Form SF from client). Then I tried to do the attachments from Web Client and received the following error message. I put in an incident yesterday morning and have heard nothing since.

The error was as follow:

Error Occurred An unexpected error has occurred and has been logged. Please provide the following information to help diagnose this problem. The action you were performing The page you were visiting The error occurred in: http://www.sgc02.com:54888/5500Client/ErrorPage.aspx Error Message:Object reference not set to an instance of an object.

I think I might have to file these clients without the attachment (with the client signature, we are signing as preparer) and amend and attach once fixed.

Any ideas?

Anyone who can address my situation would be very much appreciated by me. Here are the details

1. I am 56 years old (so not yet 59.5).

2. I am a professor at a church-related college, so I have a 403b.

3. Guidestone, the agency that has my 403b and that used to fund annuities at a floor of 6% (going back at least to the 1990s), has announced that beginning January 1, 2011, they will have no floor for funding annuities and will drop their funding rate down to 3.5 percent for annuities in early 2011.

4. With the principal in my account right now, at the 6% funding rate, I would get a monthly annunity of $2500 or $30,000 a year. It would be in equal monthly payments. I realize that this $30,000 would be taxable income.

5. My university says that they would be willing to rehire me full-time in January so that I could continue teaching (with a new 403b starting out at zero) after I formally retire to claim the higher funding rate for the annunity.

6. Guidestone seems to be about to advise the university not to do that for me because it would be a "sham termination." They are correct. It would be. I want the higher 6% rate, and I want to continue to work.

7. As I read about "sham termination" online, I do not see that it is wrong in the eyes of the IRS unless it is done to avoid paying taxes. In my case it would be done to capitalize on the higher funding rate, which is about to disappear. I would be paying more tax to the IRS due to drawing the annuity.

Is what I want to do illegal or unethical or improper in any way? Today, in speaking to the Guidestone rep, I said, "So, if I had been less candid about my motives, if I had said that I was retiring fully intending to stop work and then decided that I just couldn't be away from the classroom, you would have no problem with my current employer rehiring me full time." He said, "Sure. That would be fine." It seems to me that it should either be right or wrong for me to go back to work full time at my current employer after retiring and that scrutinizing motives is extraneous. I can see that Guidestone would want as few people as possible getting an annuity at the higher 6% rate and so they would frown on my proposal, but I don't see why the IRS would regard this particular sham termination as improper.

We have a plan that has yet to file their 2008 form 5500, we have requested the dfvc but no luck with them paying for it.

We received 2009 data and have the 2009 ready to go. Now that 2009 deadline here, should I file their 2009 timely without the 2008 filed? I think the employer is slowing coming around to the fact that he will need to pay the dfvc for the late filing. Suggestions?

Thanks!