austin3515

I definitely concede to the ignorance allegations, but I've never heard good things about that process. Some of it of course was the employer's fault because they did not know about "withdrawal liabilities" on the way in - they only found out about when they want to leave. So I suppose what I actually say to them is "watch out for withdrawal liability on these under-funded plans." I think that is actually pretty close to good advice for a lay-person like me. Would you agree? And also, your phrasing here I think is indicative that you also see a problem: i.e., many of them are. Buyer beware!

I suppose the issue ends up being if your particular employer is not a trustee, but I admittedly have zero experience in multiemployer plans... It just sounds awful. I advise anyone who will listen to never join because of these withdrawal liabilities...

Or something very much like it... http://www.plansponsor.com/Court_Tosses_Multiemployer_Plan_Withdrawal_Liability_Challenge.aspx

Apparently he can make this problem go away for just "1 million dollars" And of course, that's not really a lot of money these days...

I have not seen a letter, but if you're just talking about the "normal plans" I would not worry too much. I worry about the plan's with real estate because as far as I know it is very difficult to get a fidelity bond covering real estate (at least that's what I think I have heard). That's been our experience anyway. But I think the biggest gotcha here is going to be the non-custodian record-keepers. I think a lot of TPA's (not those who frequent these boards of course!) miss that the SAR must disclose the custodian because the recordkeeper is not a "regulated financial institution." (i.e., Schwab is custodian but someone other entity is recordkeeper). That's assuming whoever is doing the review appreciates that finer distinction .

http://asppa-net.org/News/Browse-Topics/Sales-Marketing/Article/ArticleID/3090 I know, I should have posted in 5500's section but I thought this was "big news" and this forum gets the most traffic.

Have a plan w/ no HCE's so coverage is not an issue. Can I exclude from the Plan anyone who was hired after 10/1/2014? Or could that be considered a violation of 410(a)? I know DB plans do it all the time so I assume it is ok, but just thought I should double check with y'all.

I meant for the IRA's, but I do know that they will do the skip tracing stuff too, but have not tried it as of yet. Others have mentioned Intellus so I need to check them out too...

We use PenChecks, and my understanding is that PenChecks will due their own search for them after they receive the money. We use LocatePlus which was cheap (important because we wanted to avoid having to bill clients to do this). They're like $25 a month for 12 searches or something. We've had decent success.

I thought of that but it seems like too many false positives, especially if you have no means of recognizing their photo... I can't understand why they don't have something where you upload a spreadsheet of names and socials, and the IRS sends to the address of record a letter saying hey "Austin Powers and Company Inc. has money held in your account so you should call them." They could charge $10 a pop and even make a little money. It seems obvious to me that the IRS has the best database bar none for this task. Why are they not using the best tool to solve a huge industry (and national) problem?

http://www.employeebenefitslawreport.com/2014/08/dol-updates-missing-participant-guidance/ Does anyone know which "free websites" in particular the DOL has in mind?

I agree with every word you wrote SearchLight. Thank you!

MoJo, I think the more we discuss the more it comes out that we are almost in 100% agreement. I think the only difference in our thought process is what it says about employers (and their administrators) if these "very old" documents cannot be located. That and how much we belabor the old document issue when we take over a new plan. Perhaps it would be considered a better level of service to go back 12 years for documents, but I think too it might be perceived as creating a big project to mitigate a remote risk. I just don't think it would be a good way to start a new relationship, and frankly I just don't think it's my responsibility to make sure they have copies of documents from all their past providers. And by the way, "yes" I do have the documents that we based our initial restatement on. But I will tell you this, you have gotten me thinking, as has Fiduciary Guidance. We do a quarterly newsletter and we have a standard year-end letter. I do think I will be adding something to both to the effect of "the IRS has gone off the deep end, better make sure you have your documents in order since the beginning of time." So it would be the cousin of the commentary regarding "better make sure you get your deposits in yesterday." We have that latter commentary in about 5 different letters and notices.

Are you suggesting that I go willy nilly about the office shredding old plan docs and telling clients "go ahead toss the document, who needs it!"? Is it possible that perhaps I'm just being realistic? You can call me snide if you choose (and perhaps I am being snide with you!) but to tell me I don't take my job seriously is actually one of the more offensive things you could say. I have every document I ever wrote, with a signed copy for the last 8 years (which is when I started). Either that or I've harassed the client for the signed docs. We are diligent. But there are things beyond our control. But I think you alluded to an important point which is that you don't work with a "regular" client base. For better or for worse you don't see what it's like in the real world with real people with the very real problem of keeping track of myriad documents from all sorts of different companies (and that's JUST employee benefits, forget about tax returns and the like), all of which should be kept "forever". [note: I'm talking about small companies here, less than 100 employees, generally - the big boys are more in line with the "nothing but perfection standard, as well they should be].

"Granted, the GUST restatement would have been adopted over 10 years ago, but until a much more recent date, it WAS the current document" Yes, that's the counter argument! But of course clearly every year that goes by more and more documents get "locationally challenged" You won't believe this. just got an mail from another CPA, where one of their clients is being audited. They want he original signed plan documents from, you guessed it, 2002. Mind you, the audit has not even started and they are looking for it. Beware, it seems we have an epidemic. There must have been some retreat recently where all the auditors came together with a plan for big Christmas Bonuses. I can tell you that as a general rule on audits I have not as of yet been required to provide such ancient documents (at least on a regular basis). This seems to be a new trend...

"Being snide does not become you, Austin." IT doesn't become me, but it suits my on-line persona just fine . And I think you'd be shocked at how many of your clients cannot find a document more than 10 years old. After all 10 years ago, they were in a different office, with a different CFO and using a different provider (all made up facts but very very realistic). Would it surprise you to know that I have clients who have forgotten to fund their 401(k) contributions for a pay-period?

Well clearly you set the bar very high for mere "adequacy." I only hope your clients are able to live up to such high expectations.

"You know, businesses have to retain documents for ALL kinds of purposes. If they don't/can't, well, frankly, maybe they shouldn't be in business.... " Are you referring to Fortune 500 companies? Businesses with 1,000 employees? Perhaps that's why it seems like we're on two different planets. I don't think it is even remotely fair to tell a very successful CPA (with 5 or 6 employees) that he should not be in business because he cannot find 20 pieces of paper stapled together that is over a decade old. [i should confess I was exaggerating about my tax returns; I have them all for quite a few years, most certainly the one I filed 3 months ago, and I have taken to scanning everything in and saving pdfs, which I have for the last 3 years].

Do you seriously think that more than half of plan sponsors could produce a document more than 10 years old? I don't know where I put my 1040 from 2013!! Does this not smack of "looking for trouble where you know you'll find it just for the sake of causing trouble (and yes "profits")? Picking the low hanging fruit, or fishing in a goldfish bowl with a friggin net?

$5,000 and $10,000 for not having a GUST document that was 12 years old??? The humanity!

IF he has to cough up $3,000 (plus attorneys fees) for not finding a document that is 12 years old, I will be advising that he calls his senator!!

yes, but what will happen? Will they cuff the client and drag him away? Send him a letter saying he was a bad boy but do better in the future? Fine him $25,000?? I'm willing to concede that he should have kept the documents

My real question is that now they are asking for it, we don't have it, so what will happen? I have heard of them digging for this stuff before for no apparent reason. About 10 years ago some asked me for a TRA 86 amendment. Believe me, the audit was squeaky clean. Nothing at all came up. This was an afterthought.

What's done is done, and I can't say I blame them for purging it. And we're talking about a small medical practice here... It was a PT document, and the plan has been restate a few times including for EGTRRA. But we did not apply for a Determination letter (which apparently the IRS thinks is ok since they banned the practice).

They just asked for it out of the blue. Audit went fine and then on review the "manager" said "wait a minute, this has been to easy for this law abiding tax paying citizen - we need to make them fear the big bad IRS." That's my theory anyway, I don't have any proof...