We have a Municipality that currently has a 457 plan and a 401(a) Money Purchase Plan. I believe that the MPP should be required to have compliance testing and 5500 filings.

Am I correct? The Municipality is a Medical Rescue Squad Authority.

Also. they have questioned me about an ACT 205 filing. And although I now know more than I want to about ACT 205 filings for the State of PA, I am not sure that I know how to go about filing.

Any advice.

Thanks

Participant terminates but had a series of in-service distributions during the course of his / her participation in the plan - so when he or she becomes a prior year terminee and no longer has his / her balance included in the test - are the in-service distributions that happened within the past 5 years also disregarded - logic would say yes... is that true? Thanks

We know the IRS re-canted and allowed filing of multiple Forms 8955-SSA under one TCC so that administration firms do not have to obtain a TCC for each client.

My memory (a very suspect item) says the IRS also specifically allow said firms to file the forms without specific approval or authorization by the plan sponsors. (if paper is filed, sponsor or plan administrator must file, but if filed electronically no signature and no pre-authorization)

My usual problem, I cannot locate anything here (only 2 threads using 8955-ssa and fire), nothing in the instructions, and nothing in the IRS website.

Does anyone else have such a memory, and more importantly for my attorney - a cite?

Thank you all, and have a great weekend

Plan sponsor let one NHCE enter the plan prior to meeting the plan's service requirement in error. If they adopt a retroactive amendment to let this one person in, do they also have to provide an SMM to all participants?

This is a strange one, at least nothing that I've ever seen. Welfare benefit plan (disability) always had two components - one union, one non-union. Different benefits for each component. Union benefits self-funded by employer general assets, non-union funded by insurance. All filed as, say, plan number 501.

At some point in the past, the client split this into separate plans, but apparently never told their TPA. They hired a new TPA to handle the union plan, and for 2012 the new TPA filed the union plan as 501, apparently correctly. The other TPA, who apparently was never informed of this, filed the non-union plan for 2012, also as plan 501. So two 5500 forms were filed for plan 501.

Now we enter the picture. To correct this, it seems logical to file an amended 2012 filing for the non-union plan, using new plan number 502.

My question is this: I've never seen a return amended for a wrong plan number. Will the e-fast system correctly accept it as an "amended" filing form if the plan number is changing? Or can you only "amend" a filing for the same plan number?

I've got to think this can't be the first time a plan has been filed using an incorrect plan number, and that an amended filing is ok, but I'd feel better if someone who has actually seen or done it could confirm that.

Thanks!

We are working with a client who wants to begin charging an annual $50 administrative fee to terminated participant accounts.

Their recordkeeper is trying to figure how they're going to handle this. Once they deduct the fees, where should they go? I don't think they could be added to the Erisa Budget account, as this should probably only hold funds from excess revenue. Any thoughts?

I am working on a plan of about 1000 participants. I provided the client the 2014 quarterly amount, which was 25% of the 2013 minimum. Subsequently, I realized that, in calculating the death benefit portion 2013 funding target, I hadn't accounted for the 417(e) PVAB. If I would have, the 2013 funding target and, consequently, the 2014 quarterly would have been higher. I think that I should be accounting for 417(e) since, when a death benefit is paid, 417(e) is taken into account. Therefore, I see myself as having a few options:

Thanks!

If the employer limits all accounts to a specific vendor ( Fidelity, Schwab, TR Price etc) does the limitation move the non ERISA 403(b) into an ERISA 403(b) plan?

thanks

I am new here but have read dozens of posts and realize that you guys are really knowledgeable and generous with your help. And I really need help. (I posted first on ESOP thread, but have moved to this Misc. Benefits thread because my question is about Employee Stock OPTIONS, not Employee Stock Ownership.)

I went through a nasty divorce, and 4 years later am still trying to finish the settlement. My Ex works for a huge publicly traded global company. Ex and the Plan Administrator have been friends for over 20 years. I cannot get a full and straight answer from the PA as to what my choices are to get my 50% (awarded by the court) of the employee stock options in the account. Every time I try, the PA contacts my Ex and then feeds me Ex's version of what he wants me to know. I finally went back to court and got a Court Order for Ex to authorize the company to give me the full information, but it is still being filtered by the PA.

I did finally get to see the account statements and have learned (after the Court Order) that in these 4 years, Ex has exercised and sold some of the stock. This situation of some sold shares and some unexercised Options probably has complicated the decisions on how to divide the account assets.

The only condition in the divorce decree is that the asset is to be settled in a way to cause the least tax liability to each of us. He is in a very high tax bracket and has to consider AMT. I am on SS and in such a low bracket that I owed no taxes the last 3 years.

How can I learn if the employer's Plan allows for Options to be transferred to me (and exercised at my own tax level) or what other choices I have in this asset division?

Thank you for any and all help.

Realize this not a cross tested question but seems to be the best place to post.

We have been approached by a new Company that was spun off from a larger Company - new ownership and no relationship to prior Company.

They want two classes of employees with different eligibilities. For "field employees" they want six months of service with monthly entry dates. For all other employees they want immediate eligibility.

For coverage I assume that I have to test each eligibility requirement separately for coverage. But the Plan Sponsor is telling me that since both eligibility definitions would cover otherwise excludible employees all of the employees are aggregated for coverage. I am thinking that each class of employees need to be tested. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

Is anyone aware of guidance that either blesses or prohibits a plan from accepting rollovers by participants who have terminated employment with the plan sponsor? I have a particular plan sponsor that is interested in doing so.

A 501©(3) organization established a non-ERISA 403(b) in 2009; only allowed for deferrals. In 2014 they added employer contributions and the plan became subject to ERISA. They added a 4-year graded vesting schedule. There is no predecessor employer

Under ERISA you can exclude vesting service before the establishment of the plan or prior to age 18. Can they exclude the pre-ERISA service? In other words, they want all existing and newly eligible employees to start vesting service in 2014 when the employer contributions were added to the plan. If yes, can you please provide a cite.

Thank You.

TPA Firm ABC (NOT a 3(16)) has an affiliate RIA that works with the various insurance platforms and receives revenue sharing payments from them. RIA is a co-fiduciary because they receive money for giving investment advice.

Would the revenue sharing payments constitute PT's? IT sounds like the relevant section of ERISA is 406(b). I was reading an article related to 3(16) Fiduciary Administrators where Fred Reish is indicating that such providers would NOT have PT's, so long as they are not involved in the investment decisions. So what of the situation I described?

ADP safe harbor contribution requirement is being satisfied through the 3% nonelective contribution. Plan also allows for ACP safe harbor match - fixed formula, $1-for-$1 up to first 3%, $.50-on-the-$1 on next 3%. Employer wants to amend the match formula to reduce the formula to just $1-for-$1 up to first 3%. The ACP safe harbor match is subject to a vesting schedule (not 100% vested).

It seems to me that this type of amendment is expressly allows under Treas. Reg. Section 1.401(m)-3(h), which provides that a Section 401(m)(11) safe harbor match may be reduced or amended during the Plan Year.

But, Sal's book states that an ACP safe harbor matching formula may not be modified during the plan year. This just seems to me to be contrary to the express language in the Treas. Reg.

Any thoughts, help on this is appreciated. Thanks.

Plan has immediate entry for employee deferrals, but requires 1 YOS for the employer match.

When I run the 410b test in Reilus Administration without dissagregating otherwise excludable employees the number of non-excludable NHCEs and HCEs are correct.

When I run the 410b test, choosing to disaggrate otherwise excludable employees, the number tested in the otherwise excludable group for the employer match is including employees who never met the eligibility requirements for the match portion of the plan (however they have a plan entry date due to employee deferral eligibility). Not only this, the test says they are benefitting under the match. I would expect to see the nonexcludable population from the first test I ran (w/o dissaggregating) to be split into two pieces when I disaggregate. It should be easy to check the numbers: sum of nonexcludables for 410b purposes not excludable by statute + nonexcludables for 410b purposes excludable by statute should equal the total nonexcludables from the first test, correct?

Do other users out there have the same problem? What is your workaround?

Also, if anyone can tell me what Relius' logic is in determining whether an employee is non-excludalbe and benefitting (what fields should I be looking in to trouble shoot), I would appreciate it.

Client maintains a QACA Plan.

New CEO wants to remove the match from the plan.

Do you agree they can stop the QACA match if,

1. 30 day advance notice is given to the plan participants

2. Match contributions continue through effective date of amendment

3. Participants must be given the opportunity to change their deferral election

4. The Plan must satisfy the ADP/ACP test for the entire plan year

Thanks

Have a large controlled group of ERs in a 401(k) plan - 0ver 100 participants

Have another controlled group of ER's that does not fit the Controlled Group rules to join the first group as a related ER. But has some common ownership.

What are the benefits of keeping the plans separate or setting up a Multiple ER plan.

I know that Coverage, Top Heavy and ADP/ACP testing must be done separately for the Related vs the unrelated.

I know it will be complicated to separate out as some Employees will work for both entities.

Benefits might be one Audit, One 5500

Anything else I should be looking at?

Pat

1. A participant didn’t have deferrals deducted from a commission paycheck in March 2013 (commissions are part of the definition of comp). However, if he did he would have exceeded the deferral limit. He wound up contributing $17,500. Does he still get the 50% QNEC and earnings for it?

2. Another participant had a couple of pay periods that deferrals weren’t deducted in 2013. However, if she did she would have exceeded the deferral limit. $1,444.48 should have been deducted, but that would put her $658.01 over the deferral limit. Does she get the 50% QNEC and missed earnings for the entire missed deferral or just the amount that would bring her to the limit?

Is there a penalty when a plan administrator does not cash-out the low balance accounts timely? (Assuming the plan document calls for it)

Obviously, it is a failure to follow the plan document. But has either service assessed penalties when the PA doesn't keep up with it? Or is it just "get it done" when it's discovered?

We have a client that merged their plan. The merger was to take place on 9-30. However assets were not transferred until 10-1. What would be the correct date used to consider the filing deadline? 9-30 or 10-1?

The old vendor is stating they were not aware that the plan experienced a merger and did not file the extension. They clearly received a letter indicating it was a merger from the successor trustee.

Thanks!