SEP is sponsored by a Sch C entity.  Now that entity has become a sub-S corporation.  Can the SEP sponsorship be changed to the new entity?  They want to maintain the same eligibility instead of starting over - also wouldn't mind keeping the same SEP IRA accounts.

Thanks!

Here's the situation. A group of employees recently voted to unionize and negotiations for a collective bargaining agreement has commenced. The current 401k plan offered by the company prospectively excludes union members. Accordingly, the company now wants to establish a separate 401k plan for union employees. There are a number of employees who participate in the current plan will now be ineligible for the current plan and have to switch to the plan which will be established for union members. What are the legal considerations in having employees have to switch plans?  What types of things should we (union employees) be paying particular attention to? We want to make sure people who have to switch plans aren't harmed in the process. Any and all feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Executive has a $600k base salary under an written employment agreement.  If he is terminated w/o Cause or he terminates for Good Reason, he gets base salary continued for 1 year plus pro-rated annual performance based bonus.   Employer can extend the severance for up to another year and continue to pay him the base salary  for up to 1 more year.  Meaning, executive would get another 600k of salary (for another year) if the employer extended the noncompete by another year by giving executive notice within 45 days after termination date.  Any 409A issues?

Working on the 2018 valuation for a balance forward profit sharing plan, I found out the company was sold in 5/2018 and technically the plan should have terminated as of that date.  No one notified us of the sale of the company, 

A terminated participant was paid out in 3/2018 at 40% vested.  They terminated in 2017.  Since he was paid out prior to 5/2018, should he forfeit his non-vested balance at 12/31/2018 or be made 100% vested and paid out the remainder?    

Father (88%) owner and adult Son (12%) owner are the only employees of company X. They are a corporation and not a partnership. The two make their contribution as a real estate investment with no eligible plan assets. Does this need to be filed with a full Form 5500 or can it qualify for a title 1 waiver?

1 plan with 2 sponsors (husband and wife owned 2 related companies, and adopted one plan for all ee's).

Wife sold her company, so I removed her company as one of the sponsors, and all of her ee's rolled or cashed out.  Except 1.  (There's ALWAYS that one!)  All of husband's company's ee's/part's were unaffected.

This 1 participant (ee of wife's now-sold company) has over $1000 so we can't force her out on that grounds.  The plan is still technically active, but the husband's company is now the only sponsor.

Does this participant HAVE to take her money out?  Her employer is no longer a sponsor, BUT the account still exists.

Thanks!

We are currently bargaining for a first contract with an employer. The Employer currently has a 401k plan in place and has stated that union members cannot participate in the plan and have pointed to language in their SPD which states that union employees whose employment is governed by a collective bargaining agreement under which retirement benefits were the subject of good faith bargaining are excluded from the plan. (The Employer is offering a separate 401k plan for union members with lower contributions). The exclusion of union members seems permissible to me. Am I missing something? Any feedback would be appreciated.

We're a small TPA firm. I've run into multiple ERISA attorneys advising our mutual clients lately that they must do a 50% QNEC for missed deferrals in situations that seem to me to clearly fall under Rev. Proc. 2015-28 for a reduced QNEC.

The first one said that the lower QNEC can only be used if it is a failure to enroll -- not a failure to follow an election for an existing participant. In this case it was a failure to withhold from bonuses. It was caught and corrected almost immediately.

The second one was a new plan that failed to implement auto enrollment for anyone for several months after the plan began. This is clearly the exact scenario described in the Rev Proc. I won't know until a call tomorrow why the attorney believes it doesn't apply.

Are others finding similar resistance to proposed correction methods?

I'm working with a plan that uses W-2 Comp, but excludes (among other things) "fringe benefits (cash and noncash)."

Obviously, one of the big differences between using "3401(a) wages" and "W-2 Compensation" is the value of taxable group term life.  However, since GTL is a fringe benefit, would this amount be excluded under the above definition?  Or is it only the tax-free portion of GTL that is treated as a "fringe benefit"?

On a related note, would anyone take the position that cash in lieu of health coverage (i.e., an opt-out payment) is a fringe benefit?  (It seems to me that these payments are pretty clearly W-2 comp.)

Can someone take a distribution on Prevailing Wage when they are under Age 59 1/2 as an Inservice Withdrawal - currently working at the company?  I have seen in the past Empower allows it but the plan doc only allows in-service for over age 59 1/2.  Thanks.

Plan subject to 409A says executive will get five annual installments upon separation from service. If the executive separates and begins payments, but dies before receiving all five, the plan explicitly says the designated beneficiary will continue receiving the remaining annual installments in the same manner the participant would have received them. There is no election at any point. 

The plan further says that if no beneficiary designation is on file the remaining payments will be paid in one lump sum to the executive's estate. 

It seems to me that this would violate the one form of payment requirement by toggling the form of payment based on whether or not a beneficiary has been designated. Would further allow for manipulation, e.g., executive is terminally ill and wants survivors to have lump sum, so revokes the existing beneficiary designation and effectively elects lump sum acceleration instead of remaining installments.

Appreciate any thoughts.

Participant "P" dies with no beneficiary designation.  There is no spouse. Participant had two children, son "S" and daughter "D".  S and D have both been located, but they have added a twist.  

S and D both acknowledge that P is the father of both children, but D's birth certificate does not name the father.

My understanding is that D would not be a beneficiary unless she establishes paternity through the courts.  D does not want to go through the trouble for her share of an account that is worth about $10K.

If S makes a claim and the plan pays him the full amount of Ps account, the plan should be in the clear right?   Even if D decides down the road that she does want to establish paternity, the plan would have paid the benefit to the only beneficiary at the time of the claim.  Whats throwing me off a bit is that both S and D acknowledge that P was the father of D, even though its not official.  

Has anyone dealt with this type of situation before?

What is a prudent response to a participant who is 'formally' requesting their employer add an ESG fund to the 401k lineup so they can invest in alignment with their moral principles?

Met with a prospect, currently have a CB plan.  They also need audited financial statements so their actuarial firm provided an ASC 715 report.   Question from the employer - the benefit obligation figure on the ASC 715 exceeds the CB hypothetical account balances.  

I suppose it is a matter of assumptions, and what is reasonable.  Is this typical of what CB plan sponsors are dealing with?  This is a small plan,  for IRS funding the assumption is lump sum distribution of the HAB.  I see ASC 715 assumption is the benefit in the form of a life annuity, which I suspect is the reason for the difference.

Thanks.

Following the passage of the Bipartisan Budget Act, plan sponsor agreed to adopt recordkeeper's recommended best practices, which included offering an option to any participant who is on hardship withdrawal suspension to end that suspension early. However, no one ever notified the one participant who fell into this category. Is this a missed deferral opportunity that needs to be corrected?

Dog

Company A will acquire Company B in an asset purchase ( company B will now be Company C).  A and C will be a controlled group. Company A has a safe harbor match. company C wants traditional 401(k) like they had before the sale.

1. As long as they each pass coverage independent of each other they can have their own plan correct?

Company A 10 HCEs   50 NHCES

Company C    5 HCES   35 NHCES

 2. Does Company C's traditional match have to be the same as the match for Company A?

3. Does Company C have to vest 100% immediate like Company A or can they maintain a 6 year graded schedule?

Client really wants to keep Company C on their own.

Participant pays gym membership.  He has a Letter of Medical Necessity and it has been determined that it would qualify for reimbursement. He paid the 2019 membership in December 2018.  Can that count as reimbursement for 2019 if it was actually paid in 2018?

An employer maintains a retirement plan that provides no involuntary distribution except as required to meet Internal Revenue Code § 401(a)(9).

The employer has a non-owner worker, older than 71, who works in only one month of each year.  The work is real, not a subterfuge.

Should the employer/administrator treat that worker as “retired” to compel a minimum distribution?

Why or why not?

Does it matter whether the worker is or isn’t available to work in the other eleven months (if the employer wanted services of the kind the worker performs)?

The client is a small medical practice.  It's an LLC taxed as a partnership.  The partners have entered into an arrangement with a large medical group which is also an LLC taxed as a partnership.  For 2018 each partner received guaranteed payments from the large medical group.  The guaranteed payments equal the amount of self-employment earnings in box 14 of the large group K-1s.    Can those earnings be treated as part of each partner's compensation for the small medical practice's money purchase plan?  (The large plan has it's own plan that the small practice will be affiliated with in 2020.)

Can a CEO of a company sign PBGC Form 500 Filing in the Plan Administrator line - Standard Termination Notice Single-Employer Plan Termination?

If this was Form 5500, I believe the answer will be yes under normal circumstances.  A CEO of a company can sign the Form 5500 representing the employer as long as the stated plan administrator is the employer in the plan document.