Under the DOL's new procedures that allow the TPA's to sign the 5500 on their behalf (i.e., they fax us the manually signed copy, etc), how are you completing the signature line? Are you leaving the actual plan administrators name, and then entering the TPA credentials (which obviously don't match the name), or are you entering the TPA credentials AND the corresponding TPA name as plan administrator?

As far as I can tell, this is not addressed anywhere...

I received a P-215 EFAST2 error. This is a health and welfare plan that is funded out of employer assets. The plan terminated (the final return box was checked) and the final participant count was 0. EFAST2 is generating an error saying,

"Warning: Form 5500, Line B (Final Return/Report) is checked, however the criteria for termination have not been met. Review the instructions for filing a final return."

There are no other schedules included in the filing. Does anyone have a clue why I am receiving this warning. The filing software did not display any errors/warnings prior to the submission.

We have a client that is an 80% owner of another company (the company was acquired in mid 2007). The two companies have separate plans. For plan years 2007 and 2008 no combined testing is needed because of the transition rule but for 2009 we must combine the two plans and test for coverage. The problem is that the two plans have different eligible requirements and different employer contributions. Our client eligibility is age 21 and 3 months of service while the other plan's eligibility is age 18 and one year of service. Also, our client's plan has a 3% Safe Harbor Non-Elective while the other plan has a matching contribution of 50% up to 3% of compensation. My question is for combined testing purposes which eligibility requirements should be used?

An employer thought he could apply the plan's 2 year waiting period for PS contributions to safe harbor contributions. Several years went by before the waiting period error was discovered. The ER is willing to go back some number of years, but we're wondering if a statute of limitations might apply. Documentation to determine when, who, how much, etc. probably isn't available going back more than 3 years.

Below is the validation error report on a 2009 SB that we consider correct and final (sorry I lost the column formatting). The items in bold (my emphasis) are of concern to us.

Questions:

1. Do all validation "errors" result in filing rejections?

2. Anybody else having a problem with #14? Our entry is correct but we cannot get rid of the validation error.

3. Are the other messages harmless?

Any help/comments on these items would be appreciated.

Form Rpt Pg# Rec# Fld# On/Near Line# Message

2009 5500 Sch. SB 42 6 Warning - (DOL I-155SB) The

Actuary (Name), Firm Name

and Signature Date must be

provided on Schedule SB.

2009 5500 Sch. SB 43 6 Warning - (DOL I-158SB) A

copy of the signed Schedule

SB must be attached in PDF

format when a Schedule SB is

provided.

2009 5500 Sch. SB 82 14 Warning - (DOL B-686SB)

Line 14 must equal Line 2(b)

minus the sum of Lines 13(a)

and 13(b) divided by Line

3(d)(2) when Line 4 is not

checked.2009 5500 Sch. SB 165 22 Warning - (DOL B-691SB) The

Weighted Average Retirement

Age needs to be attached

when line 22 has a value.

2009 5500 Sch. SB 169 24 Warning - (DOL I-127SB) The

'Non Prescribed Actuarial

Assumption' needs to be

attached when Line 24 is

marked Yes.

2009 5500 Sch. SB 171 25 Warning - (DOL I-128SB) The

'Method Change' attachment

needs to be attached when

Line 25 is marked Yes.

2009 5500 Sch. SB 173 26 Error - (DOL I-120SB) The

Schedule of Active Participant

Data must be attached when

Line 26 is marked Yes.

2009 5500 Sch. SB 180 32a Error - (DOL I-132SB) The

'Schedule of Shortfall

Amortization Bases' needs to

be attached when Lines 32a or

32b has a value greater than 0.

< 8 > validation errors/warnings were reported

Retirement plan is pooled and assets are with Charles Schwab & Co. Included on the Schwab statement are some hedge funds which do not appear to be registered under Investment Company Act.

Are the hedge funds considered 'held' by a broker-dealer and therefore qualifying or no?

Thanks.

Calendar year plan, valuation date on January 1. The 2009 AFTAP was originally certified as 78% in September 2009 (2008 AFTAP had been above 90%, so deemed rate above 80%). Consideration is being given to revising the January 1, 2009 valuation now to use the October 2008 full yield curve (would eliminate need for any further 2009 contributions). Smallish plan with no benefit commencements since before the September 2009 AFTAP certification. The only benefit form possibly subject to Section 436 is a full cash refund form. The revised valuation for 2009 would change the 2009 AFTAP to just over 90%. A range certification for 2010 was issued at the end of March 2010 indicating that the 2010 AFTAP would be between 80% and 100%. Presume that suitable notices were distributed in 2009 after the September AFTAP certification (indicating that restrictions could apply to the full cash refund form) and after the March 2010 range certification (indicating that the restrictions no longer applied). The 2009 Schedule SB has not been prepared yet.

Is there any bar now to the sponsor electing to use the October 2008 full yield curve for the January 1, 2009 valuation? They would be doing so expecting to elect to go back to the normal three-tier segment rates as of January 1, 2010. No restrictions are believed to apply with respect to IRS consent, for either election.

Greetings:

I am thrilled to have found this board as I have been getting conflicting advice from my broker and a couple of attorneys.

MY company just realized, because of another issue that came up, that we should have had a POP plan in place. The reason this came up is that we were exploring whether we could waive the employee contribution for a particular employee and in doing the research found that there was no plan document to guide us.

So we are now trying to get this resolved and get the plan document set up. However, there is still the issue of whether we can waive the contribution for this employee. An attorney told me we could so long as the plan doc allowed for it and the person was not an HCE and the company who administers our FSA who is now going to set up the POP for us says we cannot.

We are a nonprofit with 14 employees.

Thanks for any guidance.

Any concerns we should be aware of about joining a MEP 401K plan? It purports to take away all fiduciary liability - I don't buy that. For example, if it is an imprudent decision to pick them as provider - we would have fiduciary duty regarding that choice.... Other than that - any other concerns regarding joining one? Issues with termination? Issues with other employers screwing up? Any thoughts?

thanks

Participant was a 31% partner in a law firm in 2009, and took out a retirement plan loan while employed. At the end of 2009 he left the firm and (as often happens) had the best of intentions to continue making payments on his outstanding loan in order to avoid a distributable event.

He made payments through January 2010, and then stopped. He was notified in May that his loan would be in default effective June 30 unless he brought his payments current. He made a few token loan payments, but did not even remotely correct, and his loan was in default effective June 30, 2010.

Because he was a partner in the firm at the time the loan was taken, and under lookback rules would be considered a 5% owner in 2010, would his default fall under the prohibited transaction rules, or, because he was a terminated employee at the time he went into default would this default be treated in the same manner any ordinary employee's loan default would be treated?

Two plans participate in a Master Trust. Each plan has a 5500 filing obligation, as does the Master Trust. For simplicity sake, let's assume ALL plan assets are invested in the Master Trust.

How should fees be reported? Are all the fees reflected on ONLY the master trust filing's Schedule H and Schedule C? This would mean that, for the individual plans, only beginning balance, ending balance and "Net investment gain/loss from the Master Trust". This net gain/loss would take into account all fees, so the 5500's (Sch H and Sch C) for the individual plans themselves would not reflect any fees. Actually, a Schedule C would not even be required to be filed for individual plans. Is this correct? Thanks for your help!!

I was just told by the investment advisor on a 401(k) plan, that our mutual client (without first consulting me), distributed $6,000 from their 401(k) plan to a plan participant in the form of a hardship distribtion. The plan only allows for hardship distributions in the amount of accumulated salary deferrals without earnings. Given this fact, the maximum allowable distribution should have been in the range of about $4,500. This excess distribution was made at the beginning of this month.

What are the implications of this excess distribution to the plan?

What are the implications to the participant?

What is the best way to correct this problem?

If a 401(k) Plan offers certificates of deposit as the sole investment in the plan and then the plan sponsor goes public and elects to establish a stock fund which allows participants to make a one-time election to purchase stock in the public offering -- is the plan a "participant directed plan"? I believe the question goes to the definition of the "exercise of control" - does the one time election rise to the level of "exercising control"?

Participant was a 31% partner in a law firm in 2009, and took out a retirement plan loan while employed. At the end of 2009 he left the firm and (as often happens) had the best of intentions to continue making payments on his outstanding loan in order to avoid a distributable event.

He made payments through January 2010, and then stopped. He was notified in May that his loan would be in default effective June 30 unless he brought his payments current. He made a few token loan payments, but did not even remotely correct, and his loan was in default effective June 30, 2010.

Because he was a partner in the firm at the time the loan was taken, and under lookback rules would be considered a 5% owner in 2010, would his default fall under the prohibited transaction rules, or, because he was a terminated employee at the time he went into default would this default be treated in the same manner any ordinary employee's loan default would be treated?

If you retroactively amend a plan to include employees who entered the plan to early which is permitted under the self correction program, do you need to file with the IRS if the plan is on a pre-approved prototype?

It seems as if you have already done self correction via the amendment, why submit to IRS?

Employer wishes to terminate their SH Match Plan. Would the 30 day notice requirement still apply? I can't see where the proposed regs or other guidance would eliminate the notice requirement. I can understand where the 30 day notice requirement would give participants time to change their deferral election if the plan were to continue as a non-SH, but this action would not apply in a plan termination. If there's relief, I can't see it.

We have an ESOP that has been in effect for over ten years. My question is - as a participant in our company ESOP , am I entited to see a list of all participants and the number of ESOP shares/stocks, etc that they each have ? Thanks for the help.

Would payroll deduction loan repayments cause a non ERISA voluntary 403(b) plan to become ERISA? I believe many non ERISA plans use repayment by check or "home" billing method, but does anyone have thoughts about payroll deduction?

Thanks!

Never had this come up. Not in my materials. I searched the board and found a similar, but unanswered question from back in 2007.

Medicare premiums; pre tax like insurance premiums?

Medicare co-payments; can claim under a health FSA?

Participant is dying of cancer and fills out application for DB pension. He selects the 100% QJSA option with an annuity start date three months out. He dies at age 64 (after earliest retirement age under the plan) but before the annuity start date. The surviving spouse believes she is entitled to the participant's selection, while the Plan says she is entitled to a 50% QPSA. IRS Reg. 1.401(a)-20, Q&A 18, seems to say that the surviving spouse is correct.

Here is the text of the relevant Q&A from the Treas. Reg.

"Q-18: What is a qualified pre-retirement survivor annuity in a defined benefit plan?

A-18: A QPSA is an immediate annuity for the life of the surviving spouse of a participant. Each payment under a QPSA under a defined benefit plan is not to be less than the payment that would have been made to the survivor under the QJSA payable under the plan if (a) in the case of a participant who dies after attaining the earliest retirement age under the plan, the participant had retired with a QJSA on the day before the participant's death, and (b) in the case of a participant who dies on or before the participant's earliest retirement age under the plan, the participant had separated from service at the earlier of the actual time of separation or death, survived until the earliest retirement age, retired at that time with a QJSA, and died on the day thereafter. If the participant elects before the annuity starting date a form of joint and survivor annuity that satisfies the requirements for a QJSA and dies before the annuity starting date, the elected form is treated as the QJSA and the QPSA must be based on such form.

Is the surviving spouse correct, and do we potentially have a plan qualification problem here?