austin3515

I disagree. If the fiduciaries hired an investment professional to map the funds to like funds, and the notice says "your fund has been mapped to a fund with similar objectives and characteristics" the onus is not on the participant to determine that it was a true statement. The participant may assume that the statement is true. I'm not saying that he did the right thing by throwing out the letter (although it would be easy to blame this on sending it out in the service providers envelope), only that it is immaterial because it is reasonable to assume that he would not have acted any differently if he had read the notice. I'm not lawyer but I've read these types of arguments before.

I'm sorry, was this a sarcastic statement? In case it was not, my answer is simple: There is enough money in a potential settlement for the attorneys to get paid. And the loss was a direct consequence of someone else's decision. But even if he had read the notice he would have reasonably assumed that a good faith effort was made to map his investment to a like fund... The threshold on this is quite high though. If it wasn't it would be too much of a deterrent from participants defending their interests. Mind you, he's not alleging that he was invested in Fund A for 10 years, the market went sour, and now Fund A lost him 6 figures and that is the basis of his claim. And Fund A to boot is rated with 5 stars, and btw, the S&P 500 went down proportionately. That's when I could see an issue with the plaintiff paying defendants fees. Simply finding the for the defendant is not even close to having plaintiff pay defendants fees.

All of you are referring to chances of success. But jpod's comment here is why this could easily make it to a trial. If this were a QDIA notice that was thrown in the trash, I still think someone would get sued (let's face, it someone always sues after a 6 figure loss that was based on someone else's decision as a general rule). So in this case, the case is even more compelling. I have seen QDIA lawsuits as I mentioned that always find for defendant, but this should be a better case for the plaintiffs than that.

Lou S. read my mind. This guy was talking about a deferred comp plan. Are your "employees" highly paid executives? Based on the fact that your description of your plan surpassed even my ability to describe a 401k plan (note my designations!) it would not surprise me! Much was lost in translation in any event, if Lou S and I are correct.

I would love to get my chance to call the press if the IRS challenged an amendment expanding the availability of a 401k plan. I just get giddy at the thought of it

Kevin C, I don't know, he's saying that the original fund was a precious metal fund, so I could see where even mapping would put him into a dissimilar fund. Merciless, we'd all love to know what that notice says!

I think it is something different. I believe Merciless was invested in a stable value fund. He was then default enrolled (after being sent a QDIA Notice, that is a notice describing how your money would be invested if you did not provide any NEW elections) into a target date fund. Do you have a claim? Anyone can make any claim they want and many in your situation have. However, the courts have tended to provide deference to the DOL's endorsement of this precise arrangement. What was done to your account (assuming I guessed right) is not only permissible, but the DOL has ENCOURAGED it. Bottom line is there are a flurry of lawsuits over this very matter, and everyone I have seen has been in favor of the defendant (assuming they sent out the notices and can prove it). Some peple might look at this say "ok good, so default enrolling into a target date must be the best way to go." I disagree. I think mapping into like funds will be much less likely to get you sued in the first place. Can anyone figure out then why the mutual fund companies prefer these transactions to result in a default investment of a target date fund that they manage? But as I said, the DOL wants it this way too.

I'm definitely more on the systematic side (I cant imagine not looking at the document first, then eligibility, then the ADP test, for example). I'm still not convinced that it would be better for me!

(A) stock possessing at least 80 percent of the total combined voting power of all classes of stock entitled to vote or at least 80 percent of the total value of shares of all classes of stock of each of the corporations, except the common parent corporation, is owned (within the meaning of subsection (d)(1)) by one or more of the other corporations; and

And to follow through one inch further, a plan with no Roth 401k option does not have any Designated Roth Accounts. Also, in this situation it appears to clearly be a rollover and not a transfer because the plan terminated prior to the acquisition.

What QDROPhile said, which says 50% of the missed deferrals (i.e., if he elected 6%, the correction is 3%) plus 100% of the missed match. So if the match is 50% of this first 6, match correction is 3%.

From 1563(a) a) Controlled group of corporations For purposes of this part, the term “controlled group of corporations” means any group of— (1) Parent-subsidiary controlled group One or more chains of corporations connected through stock ownership with a common parent corporation if— (A) stock possessing at least 80 percent of the total combined voting power of all classes of stock entitled to vote or at least 80 percent of the total value of shares of all classes of stock of each of the corporations, except the common parent corporation, is owned (within the meaning of subsection (d)(1)) by one or more of the other corporations; and

First of all, there is no bigger proponent of vlookup than me. I should be paid a commission for how I tout vlookup. And lest you get the impression that I am technology averse, I can assure you that we've embraced technology (whether through Access databases, custom crystal reports, etc) to the extent that promotes efficiency and accuracy, and is not a hindrance to them. That is the guide I rely on. And ESOP Guy, it is the very moment you stop checking that you end up regretting it. And formula errors do happen. I use a "trust but verify" approach (Reagan, right?) Automate through vlookup, but then spend a moment making sure the vlookup worked correctly (usually can be done in Excel). Here is my dilemma. It seems to me that some sort of occupational consulting group would have actually sat down and asked the question: Are people able to achieve the same levels of accuracy and review on a monitor as opposed to paper? The latter affords the opportunity to write a quick note, document checks back and forth. It seems to me that with everyone jumping on board the USS Paperless someone would have done this "obvious" analysis. Example. I can't tell you how many times I've writte a letter in word, read it through 10 times over, agonized over every word, print it out, and realize that I forgot to change the client's name under "Dear Steve" (having only changed the address). That's the kind of thing I'm talking about. It hits you in the face on paper.

Bingo, that's the question. Especially when it is a wholly owned sub.

Boxes 12-17 are for state taxes. If there is no withholding are others just leaving these boxes blank?

Wholly owned sub started taking 401k contributions for remittance starting in 2015. Am I correct that this could be considered a discretionary amendment that can be signed by the end of the plan year (12/31/15)? If anyone has something on point, such an ASPPA Q&A, that would be awesome... It seems to me like this is one of the grayest areas I can think of. Is it even an amendment? I say yes because it is expanding the scope of eligible employees. No different than amending to include Division A in the Plan.

Any basis for treating as a discretionary amendment, giving until the last day of the Plan YEar for execution?

Have you guys found it challenging to review the work of other people? We talk about it, but this is my big dilemma. There is just so much I see flipping from this to that report. Looking for HCE's, comparing lists back and forth, etc. Will I notice on screen that no THM was provided? This is my big struggle. I love technology but I'm concerned that the review process will suffer...

Every now and again we talk about going paperless. My issue has always been that when reviewing people's work, printing it out on paper has OFTEN manifested errors that I never would have caught in a paperless environment. Take for example reviewing HCE's. I have last year's census on my desk and the ADP test on my desk. I check back and forth, running fingers from person to person, or perhaps using roller going down a page, putting checkmarks on those I have reviewed, to ensure that everyone on both lists is accounted for. How is that possible in a paperless environment?

So Bird... If we had 1,000 hours and last day rule in profit sharing and elect the 5% THM in DC Plan. Someone terminates in November after working 1,000 hours, you would expect that the basic plan document's top-heavy rules should override the last day rule in the same way that the top-heavy rules override the 1,000 hour rule in a DC only arrangement? That would seem hyper-logical, but for some reason that's never the answer I get from any actuaries. I actually did not get that answer from Corbel either.

I swear someone could have a two hour training or more just on THM in DB/DC Combos. Has anyone seen one from ASPPA or something like that? I'm reading what you're writing and I get it, but then I ask well "what about_____" and my head just starts to swim.

I work for a TPA that outsources our actuarial work to another company. Can someone please explain to me the best way to ensure that terminated people with more than 1,000 hours get the 5% THM and ONLY the THM in a DC Plan. We've been told that we need to get rid of the last day rule. So that's what we did. But now we have a plan where we're doing a 6% total allocation, and I'm stuck giving the extra 1% to a term. Shouldn't our document automatically give the 5% THM even though there is a last day rule, because in the document I specified that the THM wll be provided in the DC Plan? We use the Corbel VS formatted Prototype.

I'm drafting the Plan...

Nonqualified Deferred Comp (perhaps you didn't notice which forum this is ).

Thanks Tom, I'd like to think I would have thought of that if my plan was top-heavy but fortunately the TH %age is zero so far! And the Plan is a 3% SHNEC. Thanks guys!