for those who don't look at the daily news link

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2016/03/31/2016-07217/proposed-collection-comment-request-for-the-annual-returnreport-of-employee-benefit-plan

this is kind of nice - there are a couple of charts that provide a reason / explanation for the question

Doing a DFVC program for a 1 Participant Defined Benefit Plan. The Corporation is a member of a controlled group as was reported on the last 5500 filed. Since this Plan is a 1 Participant Plan it meets the EZ criteria. When looking at the instructions under Plan Characteristics code 3H is an available answer so I would think an EZ can be filed? Also, any problem switching to an EZ from a full 5500 with Schedules I, R and B? Forms last filed in 2007. Client has been over $250,000 for each year.

Thanks for your help and assistance.

We have a safe harbor 401K with pre-tax and post-tax employee deferrals.

Plan document mentions safe harbor match in terms of both employee contributions.

How is the compensation determined for purposes of the SHM?

The document defined compensation as W-2, box 1 plus pretax deferrals.

Since post-tax deferrals are included in Box 1, I would think the definition of compensation would be the same, whether employee pre-tax or after tax contribution.

I know this would probably be better under the continuing education board, but I think it will be seen more here.

does anyone have any prior year DC-1 and DC-2 books for sale? These are the defined contribution textbooks for the first two ASPPA proctored exams.

I have several friends who want to take the exams, but don't have a lot of money to spend. Considering the topics covered are fairly basic and haven't changed much using a book that is a year or two out of date really shouldn't be a problem.

Even if they are marked up / highlighted etc. I'm interested if people are willing to sell.

I'm looking for up to 4 of each.

And if anyone has DC-3 as well, I think one of those might be good too.

Hi - I am wondering whether the employees of entities owned by a fund; e.g., a Mutual Fund, must be aggregated with employees of the Fund's management company. It seems there should be an exemption but I am not aware of any.

Facts: An investment fund (the "Fund") obtains its employees from a Management Firm. Ownership of the Fund and Management companies is not sufficient to make them a controlled group; however, they are likely an Affiliated Service Group.

The management firm sponsors a qualified plan covering its own employees.

The Fund owns 100% of several companies that offer retirement benefits with much lower contributions/benefits than those of the management org’s plan.

Some of the companies owned by the Fund are held as passive investments only ("Passive" entities). Other companies are actively managed by a small group of employees of the management company ("Managed Entities").

Issues:

1. Must employees of the Passive entities be included in coverage/discrimination testing of the Management Org’s plan?

2. Same question as above with respect to employees of the Managed Entities.

Proposed Answers:

1. The passive entities need not be counted in discrimination testing because:
a. They are not part of a controlled group with the Management Company
b. They do not render or receive services to/from the Management Company.

2. The managed entities need not be counted in discrimination test because:
a. They are not part of a controlled group with the Management Company; and
b. Whatever compensation they pay for service from employees of the Management Company will represent an insubstantial portion of gross revenues of the Management Company

Additional Thoughts: I believe there are clear rulings in the area of Prohibited Transactions providing that passive investments are not treated as prohibited parties. I would think a similar exemption should apply to entities that are primarily owned as investments, even if they get some services from employees of the investment fund.

Thanks very much for your feedback.

Hi - I drafted a question in MS Word. I want to copy and paste the text into a new topic. I can't do it. This is so whether I right click and hit paste or if I use the icons above to Paste from Word or as plain text. Is there any way I can copy and paste, or must I retype the question?

Thanks

Plan sponsor discovered several people that were not auto-enrolled, dating back several years on some. Plan document specifically states "Effective for Plan Years beginning after the adoption of the 2010 Cumulative List (IRS Notice 2010-90) restatement, forfeitures cannot be used as Qualified Non-Elective Contributions, Qualified Matching Contributions, Elective Deferrals, or actual deferral percentage test safe harbor contributions (Code section 401(k)(12))", so we know that the QNEC cannot be funded with forfeitures. What about the earnings adjustment on each QNEC - could they use forfeitures for this?

Does anyone know why there is the belief among the CPA & Financial Advisor community that once owners reach 70 1/2 and start taking RMDs that they can no longer continue to contribute to a 401(k) Plan?

I think there is a school of thought that says it is very bad to take a loan from Roth accounts. Can someone point me to an article that explains this, or please enlighten me on the logic?

I have a client whose prior provider said it was a fiduciary violation to allow for Roth loans.

A New Jersey small-group health insurance contracts says an employee is a full-time employee if his or her normal workweek is at least 25 hours.

The employer would prefer to make eligible only those employees that Internal Revenue Code § 4980H would require the employer, if it were a large employer, to treat as a full-time employee (generally, 30 hours per week).

May the employer consider the insurance contract as the insurer’s obligation for what the insurer must cover (if applied for), but not necessarily a constraint on the employer’s choice of whom to make eligible under the employer’s ERISA-governed health plan?

(Assume the difference between 30 and 25 hours a week would not result in less than 75% enrollment of those employees the insurance contract defines as full-time employees.)

Is there anything that binds the employer to offer health coverage to those whom the insurance contract describes as full-time employees?

Is it permissible for the employee to contribute the maximum ($18k + catch up if eligible) into the 457b plan and the employer put up to $53k in the 401a plan?

I am working on a SARSEP (established years ago) and the adoption agreement states that the employer contribution is integrated. Is it permitted for a SARSEP to have both elective deferrals and integrated contributions if this is written in the adoption agreement?

What exemption does a mutual fund company use to invest the assets of its' own employee plan into its' own mutual fund and still receive full management compensation (expense ratios)?

I don't see anything in 4975(d) exemptions. While PTE 96-62 allows individual requests of party in interest exemptions, it doesn't apply to anyone but the applicant.

There are 3 PTEs that seem to cover the situation, but I’m unsure of the application.

1. PTE 1977-03 Open-End Mutual Funds In-House Plans: Permits the purchase and sale of open-end mutual fund shares by a plan which only covers employees of a mutual fund, its investment adviser or principal underwriter, or an affiliate. There are two key points that make me think this does not apply:

a. “…the investment adviser for which is also a fiduciary with respect to the plan (or an affiliate of such fiduciary) and is not an employer of employees covered by the plan

b. The plan does not pay an investment management, investment advisory or similar fee with respect to the plan assets invested, in such shares for the entire period of such investment

2. PTE 1977-04 Open-End Mutual Funds Investment Advisor Permits: the purchase and sale of open-end mutual fund shares by a plan when a plan fiduciary is also the investment adviser for the investment company marketing the mutual fund.

3. PTE 1979-13 Closed-End Mutual Fund In-House Permits: the purchase and sale of shares of closed-end mutual funds by plans which cover only employees of either the mutual fund, its investment adviser or an affiliate.

It does seem to be the season for the oddball situations to creep in.

Suppose you have an employer who sponsors a 401(k) plan. Doesn't do anything, doesn't contribute, but it is still a plan that is "maintained" by the employer.

Now the employer establishes a SEP, using the IRS 5305 model SEP document, and contributes to it for, say, 2014. It just comes to light now, when the CPA starts looking at all the employer's "stuff."

I read this as an employer eligibility failure. So it can be fixed under VCP, and it appears to me that the "fix" is to immediately cease contributions, while of course also making sure that all eligible employees received their contributions - if not, make appropriate corrective contributions with interest.

Anyone ever seen/done this? Am I missing anything? Seems like a very reasonable solution/correction, without too much "pain" involved for the employer (which is why I want to make sure I'm not missing something!)

I'm doing research on client attrition rates for TPAs - does anyone know of any studies that have been done? Also, could you respond to what you think it is?

a 5-10%

b 10-20%

c 20-30%

d over 30%

Welcome any thoughts on this. Frozen plan has participant with max years of service who is still working at age 69 so well beyond normal retirement age of 65. When he hit NRA, benefits did not commence and are being adjusted for delayed retirement but will soon hit compensation cap for high 3 under 415(b)(1)(B). Actuaries advise that the plan should start distributions as of the date he hits the 415 cap as no suspension notices provided / contemplated. 1.415(a)-1((f)(7), however, seems to speak in terms of distributions needing to commence at normal retirement age. I can see how that makes sense if a 415 limit exists as of the NRA but am unclear about the authority / practice for commencing as of the date the 415(b)(1)(B) limit is reached due to post-NRA actuarial adjustments. Appreciate any thoughts or guidance on this.

An odd one here. Employer established a 401(k) plan several years ago. At the time, it was a 1-person corporation. He rolled in some money that first year, specifically to be able to take a participant loan.

Fast-forward to several years later. He now has employees who should have been eligible under the terms of the plan, BUT, he has made no deferrals or contributions of any sort, other than repaying his loan.

When I look at Appendix A of RP 2013-12, the correction under .05 (2)(b) is to correct for the "missed deferral opportunity" based on 50% of the "missed deferral."

Since the "missed deferral is based on the ADP, which in this case is Zero, then it would appear that there is no correction required! An odd result, but that's where I end up. Any other thoughts?

Have a 1 participant traditional DB with approximately the following:

Rollover account: $500k assets

Funding Account: $950k assets

PVAB $500k

The one participant business owner is 68 and has participated 10 years.

The AFTAP was not done timely so benefits are frozen.

He would like to take an in-service distribution of $100k. We know he cannot do that with his pension benefit. Is there any chance he can take this from his rollover account inside the DB plan?

Thanks.

Anyone get this issue, where the accountant is throwing the 2014 staff contributions on line 19 of the 2015 Schedule C before sending it our way to finish the pension calculations? (Amounts deposited in 2015 but FOR 2014.)

I didn't think it was a legitimate option, but would be willing to hear comments on it.

I've typically grossed the net earnings back up by that prior-year number and started from there, providing them with the contributions for 2015 as what really should go on line 19.

But if there is indeed flexibility on that, then I suppose it's okay. (Although I'd be more likely to frown if he tries to deduct the 2014 employee amounts with his 2015 owner amounts on his 2015 return.)

Thanks.

-bri

So, a "sole" 401(k) plan hired an employee in 2014. He did not realize his plan's eligibility requirements were no service or age requirement per his AA. The employee became a participant on the hire date. That is what you get for cheap. Anyway, the PS portion with earnings is a costly and easy fix. What about the missed deferral opportunity? There are no other NHCEs and no ADP rate to use. Would you assume zero, assume the same deferral rate as the only HCE, or assume a rate to pass the ADP test? This seemed like an easy SCP; however, I am now leaning toward VCP and maybe even anonymous VCP.