Can plan assets be used to pay litigation costs incurred to defend a trust against bogus allegations (not concerning breach of fiduciary duty or ERISA)?

But can someone explain to mean the purpose of this 8822b form? Why the #$@# can't the IRS just reference who signed the 5500 as plan administrator?

http://www.winston.com/en/benefits-blast/deadline-looms-to-file-form-8822-b-to-report-a-change-in-your.html

[secretly, I don't think I'm the idiot ]

Has anyone seen any guidance from the DOL on what "financial records" means as it relates to item 3) in the DOL bulletin on independence?

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011-title29-vol9/pdf/CFR-2011-title29-vol9-sec2509-75-9.pdf

I've been reading some of the material here:

http://www.aicpa.org/interestareas/employeebenefitplanauditquality/resources/accountingandauditingresourcecenters/auditorindependence/pages/auditorindependenceresource%20center.aspx

and it seems the AICPA might take a rather narrow view of what financial records means. But I am not a CPA, so maybe this is typical?

A plan is looking to bid out its TPA services, and one of the companies submitting a proposal is the CPA firm that provides the IQPA services for the plan since it is audit sized. The plan is wondering if it is a problem that the auditing firm would also be the firm to provide administration services. The TPA firm has clarified that they would not be providing recording keeping, just things like 5500 preparation, compliance testing, distribution assistance, etc.

Maybe I am over thinking this. but I was wondering if I could get people's thoughts since in my experience small TPA firms shy away from providing audit services and small CPA firms shy away from providing TPA services on plans that they audit, because it violates the DOL rules.

Can anyone clarify?

Under a MEWA (or what this forum is calling a "Coalition"?), each member employer can establish their own set of eligibility criteria.. right?

For example:

Employer A says a full time employee is eligible for benefits after 1 month and a full time employee is defined as an employee working at least 25 hours a week

Employer B says a full time employee is eligible for benefits after 2 months and a full time employee is defined as an employee working at least 30 hours a week

This can occur in a MEWA, correct?

Under a MEWA, each member employer can estabilsh their own set of eligibility criteria.. right?

For example:

Employer A says a full time employee is eligible for benefits after 1 month and a full time employee is defined as an employee working at least 25 hours a week

Employer B says a full time employee is eligible for benefits after 2 months and a full time employee is defined as an employee working at least 30 hours a week

This can occur in a MEWA, correct?

Maybe there is a simple answer, but, if so, I cannot find it.

Excluded employee that is a former employee.

Does the money they are owed go into the plan and then you notify them that they can take the money out or roll it over, or do you simply send them a check and notify them that they have 60 days to roll over or the distribution will be suject to tax?

We have a client (s-corp) who contributed and deducted on their tax return approximately $6,000 more than the 404 limit allows them to do on their 401k ? In addition to filing form 5330 and paying the excise tax, do we have to amend their tax returns?

I just took over a plan with an enhanced safe-harbor match - 150% on the dollar up to 6% of compensation. In looking at the prior year allocation, the match allcoated to the HCEs was $22,500 - the same as their 401k deferrals. In limiting the SHM to 6%, would the 2012 compensation cap of $250,000 not have limited the SHM to the HCEs at $15,000? ($250,000 at 6%) The rest of the document is pretty straight forward. Thanks for any plan design guidance I've missed.

Has anyone else noticed that line 21f - total assets does not include the employer securities in the latest revision (12/13).

In the prior revision (04/06) this was line 20f. It consisted of summing 20a, 20b(6), 20c(14), 20d(1), 20d(2), and 20e. In the new 12/13 revision, 21d(1) is not listed on the form for 21f as one of the parts of the asset calculation.

21f shows sum of 21a, 21b(6), 21c(14), 21d(2), and 20e. Does anyone know of a ruling that says to not include the employer securities anymore? Is this possibly an IRS mistake on the form?

Thank you.

I am hoping for guidance.

If an employee has excess deferrals for 2013, what are the mechanics for getting those funds refunded?

The excess deferrral arose from the participant deferring 15,000 and the company putting in a 40% vested contribution of 10,000. That gets deferrals to 15,000 + 4,000 or 19,000 with excess deferals of 1,500.

Is the 1,500 returned to the employer and they pay out on a Form W-2?

If this is discovered after the end of 2013 - does an amended 2013 W-2s need to be done?

Thanks much

• Our Adoption Agreements identify the last day of the plan year as the valuation date.
• Our actuary uses the first day of the plan year for the actuarial valuation and Schedule B
• On this basis, only participants on the first day of the plan year accrue a benefit

As a result, we have several participants in one calendar-year plan who entered on 07/01/13 and so did not accrue a benefit for 2013. Are these people non-benefitting participants, or can the 410(b) test be run as of the beginning of the plan year, which would make them excludable?

We have a number of government DB plans (city, fire, police). The plans are all contributory, and the employee contributions are employer pick-up contributions. I have two separate 1099-R questions.

For surviving spouse pensioners, we have always used "7" as the distribution code. They are receiving a reduced portion of the participant's monthly benefit as an annuity for their lifetime. A few of them have called us saying that the code should be "4". That is what their accountant is telling them. Input?

For refunds of employee contributions, we have always used "7" as the distribution code here too. It seems that it should be 1 or 2, based on a variety of circumstances like age (59 1/2), age at termination (55), police or fire (age 50). whether Alt Payee or beneficiary. My question to the group is, does is make any difference that these are employer pick-up contributions?

Thank you in advance. This is my first post, I hope I was clear.

Anne

I have a client with a calendar year 401(k) plan. The plan currently has a non-integtrated, pro-rata allocation for employer contributions. Unbekownst to us, the client added a cash balance plan just prior to year end.
The cash balance plan uses a non safe harbor allocation method. The cleint has come to us to amend the 401(k) plan to provide for the non safe harbor alocation. We told them we could do it for 2014 but not 2013 saince they requested the change after the plan year end. The client's financial advisor has come bact to us and requested that we amend the plan retroactively under 1.401(a)(4)-11(g). I am not sure this is really a corrective amendment for the 401(k) plan but I did see one example in the regs that indicates that if the client has 2 plans, the correction can be made in either plan. The plan is not a safe harbor plan.

Thanks for any help.

Is there any way to merge a 401(a) plan into a 403(b). Is it specifically prohibited in the regulations? I saw threads on the 403b to 401a merger.

An expansion on the topic from a few days ago, and I'm not sure about this question.

Background: You have a controlled group, corporations A and B. Each corporation has a separate 401(k) plan. Assume 401(k) deferrals and match only, no other contributions.

For employees who have met age/service and are eligible:

Plan A has 10 HC, 9 of whom are deferring. It has 90 NHC, 80 of whom are deferring.

Plan B has 2 HC, both of whom are deferring. It has 10 NHC, 7 of whom are deferring.

When testing the plans separately for coverage using all employees from both plans, Plan A passes with no problems. But Plan B does not pass.

Here's my question - does Plan A get "tainted" or potentially disqualified due to the problems with Plan B failing coverage testing? Or is Plan A ok, and just Plan B has the problems to deal with?

I'm really not sure on this.

When an investment adviser says they do all of their 401(k) plans "open architechture", what do they mean?

Are two separate 401(k) plans that are sponsored by two separate employers in a controlled group required to be aggregated for coverage and nondiscrimination testing? If so, where does it say this in the regulations?

Ten unrelated engineers own equal shares in a partnership A that provides engineering and architecture services. These ten people also own equal shares in partnership B that provides building inspection services for lenders and purchasers.

The engineers primarily spend their time working for A and are paid by A for those services. However, they also do building inspections for B and, are paid by B for those services. The partnerships have separate management, separate offices and are otherwise separated.

They are not a control group because the 80% test is not met. However, could they be deemed to be an A affiliated service group? They would meet the ownership test by attribution(414)(m)(2)(a)(i). However, partnership A itself is not providing services to B or, regularly involved in providing services to B. It is the owners who provide the services.

414(m)(2)(a)(ii) requires that the organization be providing services.

That said, there doesnt appear to be any other authority which explicitly confirms that-although the statute would control of course.

Has anyone reviewed this or found any authority which specifically addresses whether this would be an ASG?

If a plan has different vesting schedules depending on DOH, is it subject to BRF Testing?

For example, if you are hired before 1/1/2013, you are 100% vested in your match. Anyone hired after 1/1/2013, you are subject to a 5 year graded schedule.

Ten unrelated engineers own equal shares in a partnership A that provides engineering and architecture services. These ten people also own equal shares in partnership B that provides building inspection services for lenders and purchasers.

The engineers primarily spend their time working for A and are paid by A for those services. However, they also do building inspections for B and, are paid by B for those services. The partnerships have separate management, separate offices and are otherwise separated.

They are not a control group because the 80% test is not met. However, could they be deemed to be an A affiliated service group? They would meet the ownership test by attribution(414)(m)(2)(a)(i). However, partnership A itself is not providing services to B or, regularly involved in providing services to B. It is the owners who provide the services.

414(m)(2)(a)(ii) requires that the organization be providing services.

That said, there doesnt appear to be any other authority which explicitly confirms that-although the statute would control of course.

Has anyone reviewed this or found any authority which specifically addresses whether this would be an ASG?