The definition of a fiduciary is anyone with discretionary authority over plan assets. Are there any fiduciaries with respect to TIAA's old Individual Annuity products held by many schools/colleges? They have no control whatsoever which is why they are so frustrating from a fiduciary perspective. But perhaps that is their saving grace as a fiduciary?

interesting, the instructions are different than the form that was released earlier.

on the form Question 7 dealt with ESOPs - that is not on the instructions

on the form question 9 pertaining to amount of contribution is not on the instructions.

guess we have to wait and see - the instructions are a draft dated 12/18 so maybe they changed the form

of course, all this is somewhat moot as the SUP is for 2015, so it will be another year before we have to worry about it

From St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

While PBGC is mentioned, IMHO this is truly about Congress attempting to save the PBGC from bailout.

Bill McClellan_ Pulling the rug from under retirees _ 12-21-2014.pdf

We have a husband and wife DB plan that excludes HCEs that are nonowners. So far the plan has passed minimum participation, but next year there will be 6 additional employees who will be eligible, except for the fact that they are excluded because of their classification. 4 employees will then be needed to pass. The document, which is a Corbel nonstandardized nonintegrated prototype, says that you bring in anyone who is there the last day of the PY first to pass min participation - the fail safe language is elected in the AA. The BPD allows an addendum to the section addressing 401(a)(26) and I would like to change it so that only the minimum number of employees among those who are there the last day of the PY will be brought in beginnning with the lowest paid employee. All employees are HCEs. Does anyone see a problem with that?

Also, the document says that an accrual will be provided to certain employees to pass minimum participation, but doesn't describe or define the accrual. Is it implied that they will accue a benefit under the current benefit formula or could they accrue a lesser amount that is "meaningful", like a TH benefit since the plan is TH? Since they are all HCEs, there should be no discrimination issues.

Any opinions would be appreciated.

HYPOTHETICALLY - ERPA is employed by a small TPA firm (only 2 or 3 EEs), and the owner adopts a PS/401(k) plan. No PS or deferrals ever made; he opens checking account and rolls over money from an IRA. Over next year or so, withdraws all the money, closes bank account, and never files 5500-SF or 1099-Rs. Due to function in company, ERPA is fully aware of all of this.

1) Any suggestions on how to rectify this?

2) Any EPCRS program applicable? Any experience with anonymous submission?

3) How might IRS get wind of this?

I actually posted this awhile ago but the only response I got was "Good luck". I was hoping for something more constructive.

Say a plan has two options for their forms of distribution - QJSA and lump sum. If the plan allows for in-service withdrawals (with spousal consent), can these be limited to lump sum so that if a participant wants an annuity payment under the plan it must be a QJSA at retirement age and only lump sum before then?

I have a takeover plan that had late contributions due to a change in payroll company. By using the DOL calculator all of the earnings for the missed deposits are small and the excise tax is under fifty cents. Since I have to list each week separately, the excise tax then is zero. Do you file a 5330 showing no tax due? or do you put something in so you can pay the small penalty and have it filed.

Not sure then how to indicate on the 5500.

Client would like to just deposit the earning and the small excise tax to the employees accounts. (It amounts to less than $10.00 as the amounts involved are so small.

Any suggestions?

Thanks

Is tax withholding required on in-service withdrawals? I cannot find the definitive answer.

client waived eligibility for a class of newly hired non-highly comps last year and wants to do it again. is this a problem despite the fact that they are non-highly?

I need some help from the experts.

I have a group that offers Safe Harbor Automatic Enrollment.

They currently have a 2 year vesting schedule.

They will be terminating 100 employees, due to the fact they are selling off a division.

As part of the termination package to these 100 employees, they want to offer 100% vesting.

They currently have 2500 employees, so this would not be considered a partial plan termination.

They have never offered any other terminating group 100% vesting.

The 100 terminating employees are a combination of HCEs and NCHEs.

Is this permitted?? If so, under what circumstances?

Thanks very much!

If a cross-tested profit sharing plan is written to exclude a group of employees such as associate attorneys, non-shareholder physicians or even an individual by name, those employees will not be eligible to participate once they meet the plan’s other eligibility requirements such as age and service. Therefore, they will not need to receive a top-heavy MB if they are non-keys, they will not receive a safe harbor contribution (if SH plan) and will not need to receive a minimum gateway since they are not receiving an employer contribution.

Questions:

1. They must be included in 410(b) coverage testing as non-excludable, not benefiting; correct?

2. Assuming that coverage testing is passed with those employees not benefiting:

a) Must they be included in 401(a)(4) testing with a zero contribution?

b) If no, can they be included in (a)(4) testing with a zero contribution?

c) Do the answers to a or b change if employee is an HCE or NHCE?

I'm reading through EPCRS 2003-12 trying to find correction for this. Is the plan allowed to self correct by just returning the deferrals?

Does an employer contribution to an HSA automatically make the HDHP subject to COBRA? Assume the HSA is not subject to ERISA because the employer follows the DOL guidance to avoid ERISA.

I think it does, but I am hoping somebody is aware of some guidance that says otherwise.

Plan with approx 8000 lives and continuous flow of rehires - rehires automatically re-enter the plan per the plan document - could /should the sponsor just leave any terminee's 401k withholding percentage in their payroll system so if they rehire, 401k automatically re-starts - and should the participant be given materials again since they rec'd the materials at original hire. SPD describes how rehires are automatically back in the plan subject to rehire rule / rule of parity described in more detail in plan doc....

I'm looking to recommend to sponsor to leave the 401k withholding % in their system so it's automatically re-started to avoid having to cherry-pick thru rehires to see who had been participating before... our office verifies as contributions are made that rehires are subject to re-entry thru retirement plan software.... (in the vast majority of cases based on how rehires are made this seems like it will work best) - no additional enrollment materials on rehire since they rec'd the info at original hire...

Any thoughts or points to ponder would be appreciated....

Client has prior (i.e. 12/31/13) account balance of $300,000 in profit sharing account, and $40,000 in designated ROTH account. He is age 73 in 2014, so the uniform lifetime divisor is 24.7.

So, to calculate the 2014 RMD, $340,000/24.7 = $13,765.18, because the designated ROTH account must be part of the prior account balance for calculating RMDs.

My question is: must the entire $13,765.18 be withdrawn from the profit sharing account, or can I figure a pro-rata portion from both the profit sharing and the designated ROTH account, or is the client free to withdraw $13,765.18 from either or both accounts in any ratio he chooses?

Hi,

Can someone please confirm if a profit sharing plan can allow in-service withdrawals at a stated age of 40 and not place any other restrictions?

For example, NOT require the 2-year baked rule or 5 YOPS rule- only that the participant be age 40?

Help is greatly appreciated.

Participant contributes 80% of pay and we use net comp. So 401k = 8,000, comp = 2,000 percentage = 400%.

Relius let's it through. Anyone have a problem? I'm not aware of any reg and this is not a target QNEC situation.

401(k) Plan provides for elective deferrals and employer match only. No profit sharing or other non-elective employer contributions are permitted. Vesting schedule is 20% after 1 YOS, 40% after 2, etc., with 100% after 5. As written the vesting schedule applies to all employer contributions, but as noted the document does not provide for anything other than a match.

Employer wants to amend the plan to provide for a non-discretionary, non-elective contribution starting 2015. However, it wants to adopt a 2/6 vesting schedule for that money source, while preserving the 1/5 vesting schedule for the match. Will employees with at least 3 YOS have to be grandfathered into the more favorable 1/5 vesting schedule for the non-elective contribution due to IRC Section 411(a)(10)?

Plan adopted the 3% SHNEC provisions, however only NHCE's will receive the safe harbor contributions. The client wants to exclude bonus from compensation for all purposes, including the SHNEC. Since the HCE's do not benefit from the 3% safe harbor contribution, must I still do a compensation test which will probably fail? Or would the exclusion of bonus from compensation for the safe harbor be acceptable in this situation? Thank you.

A New York State church has a non-ERISA defined benefit plan. My reading on DOMA's affect on retirement plans suggests that non-ERISA plans, such as non-electing church plans, are not obligated to follow the changes to qualified plans that came about under DOMA. I was thinking that I would find several articles on the subject of church plans and DOMA, but either I wasn't looking in the right places, or there wasn't much said about non-ERISA plans. I'm asking because a church plan wants to specifically amend their DB plan to make sure that provisions that might apply to same-sex couples will not apply. I suppose that's do-able?