I am looking for a report to Print Roth Contributions. Does anyone know if Relius Admin has one?

First, the plan document requires it, so whether or not the Code or Regs require it is really moot. Someone is asking (a sole prop) because they did not sign a deferral election prior to the end of 2009. I'm curious as to whether there is a such a requirement in the Code or Regs that I'm missing?

Has anyone ever seen a document that does NOT require a signed election, other than automatic enrollment, of course? I mean, the "election requirement" in the regs is rendered utterly meaningless unless there is a written election, so I wonder if the IRS would even approve it.

Just curious to see if anyone else has ever considered this.

is there any instance where a participant who makes in excess of 245,000 can receive a safe harbor (non enhanced) match over $9800?

I don't do movies, but maybe someone out there can identify all these movie scenes with explosions in them.

ok, don't post answers, just comments as to which ones you have solved.

give other people a chance to be frustrated

Our recordkeeper will not provide an annual Trust statement until May of this year. Is there any deadline the recordkeeper has to follow? This seems like to long a time to wait. We have contacted our recordkeeper and they are not responsive. Other than contacting a government agency, what are our options?

I am working on a plan to plan merger for a client.

In their prior plan, the client suspended their safe harbor match in March, 2009. They provided proper notice to the participants.

The client reinstated the safe harbor match in September after holding a company meeting and informing their employees.

The safe harbor match is funded annually.

No particpnats stopped deferring or reduced their deferrals because of the notice to suspend.

Does this client still meet safe harbor requirements, or can you not reinstate in same plan year?

Here's a new twist -

Client received the official "Your request was approved." letter from IRS for a timely submitted Form 5558 filed extending Form 5500 due date on a 12/31/2008 plan year end to 10/15/2009.

However, the IRS letter was dated 02/08/2010! Our tax dollars at work, eh?!

Can a 401(k) plan exclude 1 HCE but allow all others to participate?

We've started using AF's PlanPremier TPA platform and I need a reality check - after using Nationwide, John Hancock, MFS, and AF Recordkeeper Direct with few problems, we've run into a lot of minor irritations and now, one preposterously stupid thing that has me shaking my head. I need to know if this is just a very powerful system (I guess it is FAScore behind the scenes) that gives us enough rope to hang ourselves, or if it really is not ready for prime time (or decrepit and over-the-hill).

The irritations are: after money is transferred in to a plan, it doesn't show up on the main screen showing total assets until some time later; maybe each month or so that gets updated, but in order to see transferred money you have to drill down to the participant level. That seems dumb. And, to look at a contribution roster that has been submitted, you can't just go to a list of rosters and view one; you have to go to extra trouble to run a report. And, to refresh your memory on how to do something, like run year-end report, there is no printed documentation, so you have to listen to a dumb audio training session for up to 20 minutes to get information that should take a minute to find.

The stupid thing is that if the plan uses a stable value fund instead of a money market, you are screwed in terms of handling forfeitures. There is no "cash" account; forfeitures must be held in one of the plan investments. So we had them go to the stable value fund because it was the most conservative of all the investments. Well, after carefully calculating and allocating the 2009 PS contribution plus forfeitures, we find that not only has there been a slight loss in the stable value fund in the two weeks since it went in, but we're only allowed to use 95% of the money in that fund since it is subject to fluctuation (ahem - "stable value"?!). So now we have to waste a lot of time either recalculating the contribution, or telling the employer to come up with more money (how much? who knows, it is now a moving target). We've certainly learned to insist that plans have a MM fund when using this system in the future, but it seems rather "unfortunate" (mild understatement) that a relatively innocent decision by a broker (it's worth noting that brokers can mess things up, even when they're not trying) can lead to this situation - it's only a few hundred bucks but I resent having to spend even an extra minute dealing with it, and it's going to turn into hours.

Sorry for the long-winded rant (yeah I feel a little better) - any thoughts on just how good this system is?

Taxpayer has a SEP IRA. Can he convert it into a Roth, taking advantage of the no AGI limitation rules? Also, if he does this, can contributions continue into his SEP IRA going forward? And then, each year, convert it to Roth?

Based on everything I see, it appears so - just looking for confirmation from the wise ones on this board.

Thanks in advance.

A former client has a medical practice, which terminated their defined benefit plan (sole participant) in 2006, distributed lump sum benefits and filed final forms for 2007.

Upon advice from another TPA, the business sponsored another defined benefit plan with an effective date of 01/01/2006. This plan covered the doctor and some other newly hired employees. However, the actuary of new plan did not consider the benefits accrued by the owner in the prior plan for their valuation. Maybe, the new actuary was not informed of the prior DB plan. Now, this client wants to come back to our firm.

I am at my wit's end as to how to deal with this situation and seek advice as to our approach with such a situation.

We have a client with a safe harbor 401(k) plan (3% nonelective) with annual valuations and distributions as soon as feasible after termination of employment. If a participant terminates mid year and want his money what do we give him? I assumed it would be previous year's account balance plus elective deferrals. However, I have looked at the plan document and can't find where it tells me. It is a Corbel VS plan. Also, the particpant will get the 3% safe harbor at the end of the year. Do we make another distribution after the contribution has been made?

I have an employee who currently has medical coverage for himself and his spouse. The premiums are paid through a Section 125 plan. He is also covered through the Veterans administration and now wants to drop his medical coverage because he considers this to be a qualifying event. I do think it is a qualifying event for 2 reasons:

1. He has been eligible for this coverage for a number of years and is now enrolling.

2. A qualifying event has to be beyond their control such as a spouse loosing employment, divorce, etc. This event is not beyond his control.

Should this be considered a qualifying event under Section 125?

A new client came to us for a consultation with the following problem; and we could use some help.

Two 50/50 partners own a company with approx 180 EE. They were advised by an insurance agent to form a new management company with no other EE and adopt a plan covering just the 2 partners. They adopted an Insurance Company’s 401K plan and made a PS contribution for 2008 and 2009, thinking it was just for the two of them. The TPA that the Insurance Company put them in contact with just now found out about the staffing company and advised them of their problem.

The TPA advised them to reallocate the PS contribution amongst all the 180 EE, which they don't want to do. They would rather amend their tax returns, eliminating the deduction, and try to find a way to get their money back.

The Adoption Agreement is for the 2 partner management company only, it was NOT adopted by the 180 EE staffing company. However, in the Insurance Company’s Basic Docs, "Employer" is defined as the "Adopting ER, and any other employer that is a member of the controlled group, or an affiliated service group."

Must the PS contribution be allocated amongst the 180 EE, even though that employer never adopted the plan? If not, is it possible to get their money back? If so, what is involved and what penalties apply?

Thanks in advance for all of your help.

I have 2 401k plans that are merging and Plan A has 3 year cliff vesting and Plan B has 6 year graded, and survivor plan will have 6 year graded.

How should participants in plan A that has the 3 year cliff be treated? From the way I interpret Sal Tripodi's ERISA Outline on vesting and anti cutback rules under the Heinz case, you have to protect future accruals. So someone with 1 year of service although not vested under either schedule, would still have to have the pre amendment account balance protected so it can grow into the 3 year schedule (you do this by giving the greater of for the prior balance) and you would have to bifurcate vesting for this participant until you have the same vesting under both schedules. Is this correct? I think this is why it is easier to just grandfather the 3 year cliff or give the greater of to these participants for their entire account, and apply the 6 year to new hires and participants in Plan B.

Do you then have BRF testing issues because there are 2 vesting schedules under the same plan?

I appreciate any comments!

Client received a QDRO permitting the A.P. to receive a distribution or keep the money in the account. Client is close to the large plan audit requirement and does not want to permit A.P. to keep her money in the plan as an option We are reviewing the DRO. Any grounds to require them to take that language out?

In March 2009, a company preformed the 2008 ADP test and distributed excess contributions. Later in 2009, it was determined that some of the data used for the testing was incorrect. The data was fixed and the ADP test was rerun resulting in additional excess contributions that needed to be distributed in order to pass the test. Unfortunately, the plan’s recordkeeper did not make the additional distributions until January 2010.

It was my understanding that because the distributions to correct the test failure were not made within 12 months following the end of the plan year, the test failure could be corrected with SCP using either a QNEC or the One-to-One method. However, the plan’s recordkeeper has come back and said that since the plan did test and make initial corrections in a timely fashion, the additional excess contributions due to the revised test data can be corrected under SCP by distributing excess amounts to participants within two years and no additional contribution is required. Are they correct?

Thanks.

PAL

A company I work with recently received an e-mail from another firm stating that the IRS had announced it's plans to send a questionaire to a cross-section of retirement plan sponsors in March 2010. The purpose of the questionnaire is to guage the level of compliance and determine which compliance issues need to be addressed. I can't seem to find this announcement anywhere. Can someone point me in the right direction? Thanks in advance for you help.

PAL

Service for an adopting employer on a multiple er plan?

We have a plan that we've been TPA for about 10 years. Sometime in the distant past a participant (Y) terminated employment with a vested benefit and was reported as such on the SSA. Following that, we assume, she was paid out since there was no record of her on the information we received. It also appears that no additional notation was completed on another SSA indicating that she was paid out.

We don't have a 1099 to show her. Any thoughts or suggestions on other avenues available to confirm the distribution? We're pretty sure it happened between 1997-1999.

Thanks.