austin3515

Can someone provide an explanation as to what this is for? I believe it had to do wth a statute of limitations thing. Also, if there is no separate EIN for the trust, can we just use the employer's EIN?

Thanks!

Why would a non-profit have a 457(f) instead of just a regular old deferred comp plan? Because the (f) requires a substantial risk of forfeiture to avoid taxation, whereas the regular non-quals do not (at least not with respect to fed taxes--it would of course be subject to PR taxes), it seems to me that one should never use a 457f. So then, I gather a non-profit is required to use a 457(f)? Is it because anything sponsored by a tax exempt entity that is not a 457(b) is by default a 457(f)? i.e., the plan sponsor has no say in the matter?

I won't complain too loudly about their incompetence as without it we wouldn't get nearly as much business

Same here!

If you would be comfortable sending me a PM and letting me know what you all are thinking about charging for these PPA restatements, I would be more than happy to reciprocate with the same for you. We're just trying to get a sense for what others are doing in this regard.

Does anyone know if it is even appropriate for a US citizen working in a foreign country (in this case a small island nation) to receive US wages (i.e., reportable on a w-2?). My question of course is can the employee participate in the mainland 401k plan?

HEre's another take - it's hard to imagine there being an issue with having the guardian (parent in this case) get a guardianship appointment from a court?

Mom & Dad divorce after having one child, now 3 years old. Dad dies after naming his 3 year old as his beneficiary. Obviously, the 3 year old is not going to open a checking account, etc. nor decide between an IRA rollover and a cash distribution. Someone mentioned that perhaps the mother would need a financial guardian before the custodian should be allowed to make the checks payable to the mother. But perhaps the birth certificate would suffice?? Any thoughts on what to do here? Perhaps someone has read a good article?

Got a 457b "funded" w/ brokerage accounts. Am I correct that the board really ought to be approving a menu of funds? I assume it would be ill advised to let the execs trade in anything they choose? I had one other 457b plan this way and that's what the attorney recommended. I wasn't sure if that was a rule or a good recommendation or what.

TIAA-CREF Plans invest in CREF Mutual Funds. Based on the way the Schedule A report from TIAA is prepared, it is clear that these funds are pooled separate accounts, as the total reported on line 5 of Schedule A includes the CREF Mutual Funds. Based on the Schedule D report, it is also clear that they have not elected to file as a DFE. Therefore, they include the CREF investments on the Schedule H report as Mutual Funds. But why then on Schedule D, do I not need to report each CREF Fund with their EIN and 000 as the Plan Number, as I do with John Hancock plans?

Does anyone have a good web-site to sdee if a pension beneficiary has died? used to use Roots web which I guess is gone now...

That works for me... Still an idiotic rule though.

I get that, but let's say no ponies up for the job, but the plan sponsor goes out and gets all the prospectuses? Can the plan sponsor list itself as providing the disclosures?

I actually think I found the authority: Schedule A Line 7a-f instructions indicate: "Show deposit fund amounts rather than experience credit records where both are maintained." I looked up the term "deposit fund” and it clearly relates to book/contract value. Further “experience credits” relate to fair value because it relates to the excess of allocated assets over contract value. Line 4 to Schedule A instructions references "current value" defined in Sched H as fair value. Line 1c 14 instructions say: “Use the same method for determining the value of the insurance contracts reported here as you used for line 4 of Schedule A, or, if line 4 is not required, line 7 of Schedule A.” Line 4 on Schedule A is not required for Benefits Responsive contracts and Line 7 (as shown above) is contract value. Therefore, 1c14 should be contract value for fully benefits responsive contracts – otherwise, it would be fair value. Also, see the "Fair Value" section of this article which I think supports my conclusions. http://www.form5500help.com/Coordinating.html

Looking for the DOL reg that indicates that Value for Guaranteed Interest Accounts = Contract Value where fully benefits responsive. In this document, http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/publications/2009ACreport3.html which is an ERISA Advisory Council report regarding valuation of assets, it says: "For example, for Form 5500 purposes, current value reporting is required. Current value is deemed to be contract value for fully benefit responsive funds." Where is this rule? I cannot find it anywhere... I know the ERISA section is 3(26), which is found in 29 U.S. Code § 1002, paragraph 26, but I cannot find any related regulations. "(26) The term “current value” means fair market value where available and otherwise the fair value as determined in good faith by a trustee or a named fiduciary (as defined in section 1102 (a)(2) of this title) pursuant to the terms of the plan and in accordance with regulations of the Secretary, assuming an orderly liquidation at the time of such determination." And is there a web-site where I can type in the us code (e.g. title 29, Code 1002) and find any related regulations?

Plan A, an audited plan, invests all of it's money in the Fidelity ABC Fund. The Plan is a pooled account so there is no recordkeeper to provide the disclosures. Fidelity ABC Fund in turn pays a management fee to FMR (Fidelity's investment management arm) of $15,000. Am I required to report FMR as a service provider on Schedule C and report the $15,000 of management expenses? Fidelity is not going to be sending a Schedule C report to the Plan - the investment is taking place through either a brokerage account or a custodial/trust account. As such I cannot imagine this would qualify as eligible indirect compensation. OR would existing laws that talk about sending prospectuses automatically satisfy the Eligible Indirect Compensation disclosures?

See EPCRS Section 6.07. (EPCRS is in Revenue Procedure 2013-12).

Employees have no responsibility whatsoever. ECPRS is definitely an option. You can either reamortize the loan over remaining 5 year period, or make a lump-sum payment to catch-up on the missed payments, or a combination of the two. I have see employers provide interest free loans and the like to make the participant whole. So for example, the lump-sum payment could be "loaned to the employee" from the employer. That way, their loan deductions for the participant loan would not be changed and would be repaid on-time. Then the employee loan could have it's own terms. Perhaps they just provide the employee with a bonus to fund the missed loan payments, grossed up for withholdings, etc. and send that in. Regardless of which strategy is selected and how you choose to make the employees whole (the latter of which is not a factor with EPCRS), you would need to submit to the IRS under VCP to "undo" the default.

Does it end up being passed the last day of the quarter following the quarter in which the last payment was made? (assuming that is the Plan's grace period). The one that is outside the 5 year time period is definitely defaulted, there are no options to correct that under EPCRS. I would suggest making the participant whole through a bonus.

8 quarterly payments?

You've omitted a crucial detail - how long has it been since the participants last made a loan payment?

yes, still within 5 year period.

I have always been of the opinion that the IRS's approach to this has been (to their credit), if you have the wherewithal to come in and admit you have sinned and are willing to pay the fees, that they will more or less "rubber stamp" your correction methods, especially if they are the sanctioned correction methods. So I have a client (business owner) who during a transition from one vendor to another did not re-establish her loan payments. We just took over as TPA and discovered the error. Obviously, one of the principals for correction is that it has to be Employer Error. Have people had good luck with submitting these corrections? I know the hurdle is higher than it is with respect to employees. Again I come back to the fact that my employer just wants to do the right thing. Would you do an anonymous VCP in this scenario considering the tax implications if it is denied?

You know something, this was one of those times for me, when I read the regs and thought, wow, this actually makes sense! Thanks mastiff!