We have a plan that terminated with a lost participant. The assets for this participant reverted back to the plan sponsor. The participant was found three years later. The plan sponsor will pay them. We will probably outsource the distribution. Is there any necessary plan reporting?

I am going back into the benefit profession and a little rusty around the corners. I wondered if someone could be so kind of explain how a large employer that offers self insurance medical health plans will know if an employee gets a goverment subsidy on the exchange? Is that something that is asked on an open enrollment form? Does the employee have a field that states I am opting out of company plan to be on a private exchange with the gov. subsidy? Or does an employer run salaries and try to guess which employees might take it? Little confused on the process. And once it is determined someone received the subsidy, when and where is the penalty paid? Does this also apply to the few plans out there that are grandfathered? Anything else I might have missed in the last few years for large employers

For a self employed defined benefit pension plan, what limitations are there on treating pension contributions as an expense (either on Schedule C Line 19 or on Line Form 1040 Line 28) when Schedule C earnings are negative?

Line 3g (the chart) is confusing in so many ways, but I will limit my question to a couple of issues.

For the PPA amendment, what are folks entering in column (vii)? Many PPA amendments (and other interim amendments) were model amendments or some kind of standardized format addressing numerous changes. Should we have an attachment listing all of the provisions? The instructions do not address this column.

The instructions describing which amendments to list in this chart are not clear. It seems we are to list certain amendments and include with the submission, but also we are NOT to list certain amendments but still include with the submission.

Has anyone seen guidance on when we must start using this form?

Are others puzzled by this form, or is it just me?

Thank you!

Client had a work-related emergency and had to ignore phone calls and emails pleading regarding filing the 5500 by the 7/15th due date. The form will be filed by noon today (just 12 hours late).

Has anyone ever heard of a) a grace period or b) an abatement request that was approved?

Or is the response, "we know #$@$ happens, and that's why we added DFVC."

Long story short, it was an audited plan and the financials were received yesterday which is why this all went down last minute.

Client had a SIMPLE for 2013, established a 401(k) 1/1/14.

All of the participants have elected to roll their SIMPLE accounts into the 401(k) plan and the money has been transferred. Now the SIMPLE matching receivable needs to be funded from 2013. The client would like to just put the money into the 401(k) rather than re-open all of SIMPLE accounts since everyone is rolling their money anyway. While this is clearly "wrong", it does keep everyone "whole". Any thoughts on how the IRS would view this if we call it self correcting ?

in practice, how often has there been a bad apple that has disqualified a multiple employer plan that was not able to be fixed by one of the correction programs?

Case 1. 2014 AFTAP = 80%. Plan terminated 12/31/2014. Final distributions anticipated in 2016. Assets 12/31/2014 depreciate 25% from 12/31/2013. A NHCE terminates in 2015. Can he receive an unrestricted lump sum distribution prior to the final termination distribution?

Case 2. 2014 AFTAP = 78%. Plan liabilities under IRC 430/436 are determined as of 1/1/2015. An AFTAP of 83% is determined and certified. Subsequently, a NHCE terminates in 2015. Can he receive an unrestricted lump sum distribution prior to the final termination distribution?

I'm unaware where remeasurement, presumed funding, or AFTAP certifications apply after 12/31/2014. So, unless someone can suggest other guidance, life is fixed until final termination distributions.

As a CFP/CDFA, I often deal with pension present value calculations for divorce situations. Often defined benefit pension (employer) will provide the employee the monthly benefit upon his/her retirement (or at various ages). Under a Cash Balance Plan, the aggregate present day hypothetical 'value' is provided by the employer (usually annually?). My question is this: Does that annual phantom value of the account balance (credit) -as communicated to the employee- equate to a present value for determining an asset value of a potential future stream of income? Conventional wisdom would say it is. [based on the theory that a Cash Balance Plan is a dollar amount in present value form for the future benefit of an employee. Trying to determine a future stream of income, only to actuarial back-out a PV seems like an Excel spreadsheet circular reference!] *As a follow-up, Are Cash Balance Plans transferable via a QDRO to an ex-spouse as are Defined Contribution plans?

Is the Plan Sponsor of a Defined Benefit Plan required to notify participants when they've reached or surpassed Normal Retirement age (i.e. a letter reminding the Participant he/she is now eligible and should consider applying)? What about having reached/surpassed age 70 1/2? I'm looking for language regarding whether these notices are REQUIRED by any entity or if it is merely good practice. Thanks.

Company long-term disability plan has two components:

1) company provided 50% of pay

2) voluntary employee buy up to 60%

There is no insurance, plan is self funded. There is no cost to the employee for the 50% base benefit (and no income is imputed) so any benefits received are subject to income tax. Employees pay for the buy up with after-tax payroll deductions so the incremental 10% benefits are received tax free.

The question is: can the employer impute income for the cost of the 50% base benefit so that all disability benefits received would be tax free? If so, since there is no insurance, and the plan is self funded, how would the company determine the amount to impute? Could they engage an actuary to set "rates" for the base plan? Would a composite rate suffice, or would they need to develop age based rates and impute accordingly?

Two employers in a controlled group both sponsor separate profit sharing plans. One employer in the controlled group wants to add a 401(k) feature to their plan, the other one does not. Assuming they pass the Rights, Benefits and Features requirements, can one employer have a 401(k) feature while the other does not? Both plans pass coverage testing separately. Thanks in advance.

I have come across various references to a practitioner who obtained favorable technical advice from the IRS National Office on a retroactive corrective amendment under Treasury Regulation Section 1.401(a)(4)-11(g), where the amendment named specific NHCEs and the amount of the additional contribution they would receive in order to correct a failure under IRC 401(a)(4). Apparently, the reasoning by the IRS was that there is nothing in the regulation that prevents the amendment from specifically naming the employees. One of the references I came across indicated that the TAM had not yet been published, and I cannot find an official TAM number. Does anyone know whether this TAM was published? If so, could you post the TAM number?

Thanks!

Current loan balance appx $25K

Current account balance appx $25K

Current total account balance appx $50K

This participant can not have a in service dist since he needs his account balance to secure the loan, correct?

the plan document and form shows the plan as a single employer. The Plan Sponsor is ABC, LLC

However, all the employees are in DEF, LLC which is owned 100% by ABC,LLC. Based on my research this is a parent-subsidiary relationship.

Doesn't the plan sponsor need to have a participation agreement with DEF, LLC?

If yes, and no agreement was signed, isn't there a document issue, causing the client to file under VCP?

the plan document states, If the employer is a member of a related employer group ( includes all members of a controlled group) Employees of each related group may participate under the plan provided the related employer executes a Participating Employer Agreement. If a related employer does not execute a Participating Employer Agreement, employees of such related employer are not eligible to participate in the plan

Guess I found my answer......

Need to file under VCP to correct?? Do you agree

We have a 401(k) plan that begin the 2013 plan year with 226 participants. The plan terminated during 2013 and the plan sponsor has disolved the business. The plan assets were distributed in late November 2013. The plan sponsor does not want to have the independent auditor performed, bascially doesn't want to pay for it. Anyone know of any consequences of filing the final form 5500 without an accountant's opinion?

I read a couple of articles that state matching contributions are not allowed in a Roth solo(k). Is this an accurate statement? I had the understanding that a solo(k) was simply a 401(k) with a few less reporting requirements (no Form 5500 for less than 250k in assets, for example). I can't find anything in an IRS publication that supports this statement.

I know that it isn't necessary to match as you could use the profit sharing contribution to contribute to maximum if you have a solo(k), but I am looking down the road in case employees are hired in the future.

Thanks!

F5500SF Part V line 10(f) --- Has the plan failed to provide any benefit when due under the plan?

does this include missed RMD payments?

A traditional DB plan has a special 415(b) provision that limits it to the pre-EGTRRA $140k. Would amending this be considered discriminatory? No participant was ever affected by this lower limit. The owner of the business reached NRA 65 and accrued his full benefit two years ago. His benefit has been adjusted for post-NRA increases. This year, his adjustment will be affected by the lower limit.

In this case, increasing the 415 limit will only serve to allow him his age 65 accrued benefit equivalent. Would amending the 415 limit be considered discriminatory?

Also, they would like to amend actuarial equivalent interest rates from 6.5% pre and post to 5.5% pre and post. I know this is a 411(d)6 protected benefit, but in this case all current participants will have higher lump sums not lower. The participants who received lump sums in the past all received lump sums that were based on 417(e) rates that were lower that what the new 5.5% actuarial equivalent rates. Would this change be considered discriminatory?

Thanks.

What is the latest date repayments can start?

I thought there was something that required payments at least quarterly (due to the cure period rules). But I don't see anything that says when the first payment actually has to start by.

I don't see anything in IRC §72(p) or Treas. Reg. §1.72(p) that actually address this.

Plan document (VS) language mirrors the regs - Cure period is ends at the end of the calendar quarter in which the installment payment was due, after which the loan is in default.

The loan policy/plan document do not provide any restrictions on how far out loan repayments can begin.

If there is no installment payment due that quarter, then the cure period doesn't start?

Example:

Loan taken 2/15/2014

First payment due (according to level amortization schedule) 6/15/2014

According to the default/cure period rules, a plain reading would seem that the loan is in default as of 9/30/2014, not 6/30/2014 as I would have thought.

Could the participant have put off the first payment even longer? As long as payments are level, and the loan is repaid in five years of the loan start date, I don't see any reason why the first payment can't be really far out. In the example, could the first scheduled payment have been 9/15/14? with quarterly level payments thereafter? Then if the first payment was missed, the loan would be default as of 12/31/2014?

I feel like there is guidance I must be missing, that this is a loophole someone else figured out and the IRS would have address it either formally or informally.

Can anyone clarify?