In a PBGC plan termination, to qualify for standard termination, benefits needs to be fully funded.  To accomplish this, under 4041.21(b)(2), an owner of 50% or more can make an election to forego benefits.  Is anyone aware of the definition of majority owner being reconsidered?  It seems like if a partner of say 10% should be allowed to make a similar election; no staff is harmed and the IRS gets an extra tax dollar assuming the deduction is not taken on fully funding the benefit.

Second question: If the plan is not covered by the PBGC, what then?

Employee deferred in 2016 & 2017, rolled over large amount ($182k), then terminated in 06/2017 and rolled over all money to an IRA.  She wasn't eligible until 07/01/17.  Will look into retroactive amendment to make her (and others?) eligible; alternatively I am thinking:

• $182k rolled into plan ended up back in an IRA so net result is same as if had never gone into plan
• $1,136 deferrals were in 2016 and $4,498 were in 2017 and both ended up in an IRA.  Since she was withing IRA limits for each year (assuming she didn't have other IRA contributions), net result again is same as if she had just put into IRA and not into plan

Given above, we should just be able to document all this and consider issue self-corrected.

Thoughts?

Im horrible at searching and finding previous posts on a subject.  Forgive me if this has been answered before...

A CPA I work with asked me what should be done... here is the situation -

His client works for a small company and has been deferring from his paycheck.  He was on track to defer around $13K for 2017.  After looking at his account he became concerned that the deferral deposits are not adding up. Significant discrepancy.  Come to find out the deferrals have been withheld BUT they were not being deposited.  In fact the company was using his (and maybe other participants) deferrals to cover some cash flow problems.  Not good.

I have never had this kind of problem.  What do people suggest the proper steps he should take? 

Thanks

I'd swear I've seen, and perhaps been involved in a discussion similar to this, but darned if I can find it, so...

Plan is currently a 3% nonelective "maybe" plan. So, at this point, they are NOT a safe harbor plan for 2017. Suppose many of the employees will now be entering a union. There's no problem with amending  the plan to exclude union employees. What I want to conform is this: since they will, for 2017, have both union and non-union wages, then for 410(b) purposes (1.410(b)-6(d)(2)(i)) they have "dual" status - so when it comes to testing profit sharing allocations,  they will be non-excluded for purposes of their non-union hours and wages, as well as top heavy. Once the plan amends into Safe Harbor status for the year, must they receive SH 3% on the non-union wages? My inclination is yes, but I'd appreciate any other opinions. Thanks.

(edited to remove a section that I intended to delete, but forgot to in original post)

Hello everyone,

Could someone please explain to me what balance forward earning accounting represent? I'm new to the benefit plan world, and I noted that our recordkeeper has an adjustment for "Balance Forward Earnings to Allocate". I understand that this balance is allocated to each plan participant however I don't understand the basis behind this adjustment.

Thank you for all your help!

Armand 

Normally, medical plan elections can roll over from year to year. However, the last couple years our company required employees to elect or decline medical coverage at open enrollment. I believe they wanted to get an affirmative answer, one way or another, with the advent of Affordable Care Act requirements.

Given some of the uncertainties at the time, I was okay with forcing people to make an OE election.  However, does anyone know of a reason or rule where by we should continue to do this practice? I would prefer to revert back to roll over elections again, but I want to be sure I'm not missing anything.

Required? Good practice or bad?  Thoughts welcome.  Thanks.

To draft a QDRO?  I get that a lot of stuff that we do the lines get blurred.  for example, perhaps complicated language in the other field of a volume submitter document, or perhaps requesting language changes to a QDRO for clarification.

I don;t know why I feel like drafting a QDRO goes over that line, but I think it's because a judge ends up signing the document.

Thoughts?

I have a governmental plan that is individually designed and has not been restated since 2001. If it is a cycle C (I realize that remedial amendment cycles are no longer around), what years should the plan have been restated? In other words, what years did the plan miss a required restatement? 

Nobody's brought it up so I will...the RecordkeeperDirect platform, which was perfect for micro plans, is changing pricing from an average account balance basis to a total assets basis.  A plan that was no cost with average assets of $5000 is now going to be $500 setup for a startup and $750 + $20/participant per year.  It's a punch in the gut for us; tough to add those prices to our fees when selling a plan for a handful of people.

So...what are the options?  John Hancock (meh)...Voya (meh)...?  I really really hate using individual brokerage accounts and effectively recordkeeping in house, manually. 

Appreciate any thoughts.

A situation I haven't encountered before, and I'm wrestling with it.

Suppose you have two non-profit corporations, A and B. A sponsors a non-ERISA 403(b) plan. B sponsors a SIMPLE-IRA. They merge, mid year, to form a new non-profit corporation C, with a new EIN, etc.

Apparently A & B no longer exist, although the information I have is far from comprehensive.

These are not plans that can be merged with any other plans.

Can you, for the remainder of 2017, treat each set of employees as still "separate" and continue the plans as before, and hope that if ever audited, the IRS is reasonable and accepts this as a good faith compliance effort? Do you treat each plan as terminated as of the merger date, and just start fresh with a new plan - which is problematic at best, since  the merger took place some time ago (date unknown - I only know that it was in 2017)? I'm reasonably certain that no plan termination notifications/resolutions/amendments were ever done prior to the merger. I don't yet know if deferrals/employer contributions to one or both plans have been made since the merger.

Quite a fiasco...

All thoughts appreciated!

I'm not finding anything in the cafeteria plan proposed regs that deals with this. So, let's say you have two non-profit corporations, only one of whom sponsors a cafeteria plan. The two corporations "merge" to form a new corporation, with a new employer id #. They do this mid-year.

In the qualified plan world, there is certain guidance for merger and acquisition situations, but I haven't seen anything on this for cafeteria plans. Anyone have any experience with this, or know of any guidance? If not, opinions on what is normally (or should be) done? Thanks.

Found some small amount of guidance which isn't really on point, but perhaps gives a tiny insight into general thinking by the IRS - seems tilted toward being reasonable - Revenue Ruling 2002-32. Since this is not on point, very old, and prior to the proposed regulations under 125, it ultimately isn't very useful, but is all I've been able to find...

I have an audit plan and they made 1 late discretionary matching deposit in 2016. It was 2 weeks late due to a glitch in their payroll system.  Their plan document was amended to allow matching contribution, made on an a payroll basis,  as of 2/1/2016. All their 401k deposits are fine. CPA wants them to go through SCP or VCP in case the plan ever gets audited. And he wants us to submit a letter stating that this is not an operational failure in case they get audited in years to come.  I'm thinking neither is necessary. Is this an operational failure?

Thanks in advance!

Does being a Directed Trustee count as a "Fiduciary" under the BICE exemption with the DOL Fiduciary/Conflict-of-Interest Rule?

Is this a breach of fiduciary duty and should we comply with his request?

The plan indicates that any employee who works over a year (even if the employee has not met the standard 5 year vesting) and terminates employment after age 55 is 100% vested.   This employee met this requirement.  However, the employee was somehow “lost” in the defined benefit plan recordkeeping system and never recognized as being vested.   The employee was given a Summary Plan Description when he was originally hired.  However, NO notices were ever mailed to him at termination or periodically.  He was not mailed a Deferred Vested Pension Notice at termination; He was not reported on the annual Schedule SSA in the year of termination; He was not updated with a SPD when the plan was modified; He was never mailed a SPD during the 10 years between his termination and age 65; He was never provided an annual notice.  It is not a matter of a “lost” participant as his mailing address and phone number remained the same throughout all these years.  Three months before his 65^th birthday, he contacted the plan administrator, asking for his paperwork.   He was not called back because it was thought that he did not qualify since he did not have 5 years vesting.  He later called back again and insisted that he was vested because of ERISA.   It was referred to our legal department who said that he was in fact vested due to his age at termination.   He has now asked that the benefits be paid from age 62 (which is allowed in the plan without any penalty).   A brief letter was mailed to him saying that he would have had to apply before age 62 to get the benefits and that he could only get benefits starting at age 65 but no explanation of how to appeal the decision was in the letter.   Since this was apparently a breach of fiduciary duty (although no one has openly admitted this to him), should he be paid the benefits from age 62?  And what if we have others who also fall into this category due to our failure to recognize the over 55 rule?  

I have a sole prop plan with a small earned income amount. There are no other employees in the plan.

Owner is over 50 and catch-up eligible

Net earned income after Sec. 164(f) deduction is $23,589.75.

25% PS contribution is $4,717.95.

Plan comp is now $18,871.80.

What is he eligible to defer? My thoughts are that it would be $18,871.80, but our testing software is coming up with 402(g) and 415 limit excess amounts with these amounts.  What am I missing?

Sorry if this obvious. My brain doesn't seem to be working today.

Plan is new comp, 3 classes.  Adopt Agreement allows allocation for each class to be:

i.  A percentage of Compensation

ii.  A fixed dollar amount

iii.  the greater of i. or ii.

 Plan design was always intended to be % or $ and plan has always operated with this type of allocation.  When preparing PPA restatement effective 02/01/15, we mistakenly checked box i. instead of box iii.

This error was missed when doing valuation for PYE 01/31/16 but caught now.  Please comment on proposed action of simply documenting error and correcting that page of Adoption Agreement.

Plan is new comp, 3 classes.  Adopt Agreement allows allocation for each class to be:

i.  A percentage of Compensation

ii.  A fixed dollar amount

iii.  the greater of i. or ii.

 Plan design was always intended to be % or $ and plan has always operated with this type of allocation.  When preparing PPA restatement effective 02/01/15, we mistakenly checked box i. instead of box iii.

This error was missed when doing valuation for PYE 01/31/16 but caught now.  Please comment on proposed action of simply documenting error and correcting that page of Adoption Agreement.

Hi.  We received a loan request where the participant is looking to extend the loan repayment period past 5 years because he is buying a primary residence.  He sent us a mortgage contract to prove that this was happening.

In the contract, it states that "This Agreement is contingent upon Purchaser obtaining approval of a FHA mortgage loan of $X...", where $X is the amount of the purchase less deposit plus closing costs.  The amount being requested as a plan loan is more than the deposit amount.

So... is the loan actually used towards the purchase of the primary residence or not?  If the Purchaser must get a mortgage to cover the entire cost, then the loan is just replenishing his bank account (except maybe for the down payment amount).  Or, as I suspect, this is just an example of language being stupid and inexact and we all know what the heck is supposed to be happening, so it's fine?

Thanks!

Does a profit sharing allocation that is a points based allocation based on service where participants get a share of the contribution based on the ratio of their years of service to the total years of service of all participants meet any kind of designed base safe harbor?  It's basically a pro rata allocation based on service.  Thanks.