austin3515

Plan provides for a 100% of the 1st 5% contributed match into the "Matching Retirement Plan". Deferrals up to 5% and the 5% match go to the Matching Retirement Plan. Deferrals above and beyond 5% go to the TDA Plan (i.e., the "supplemental plan"). Eligibility for everything is immediate. We're trying to determine whether or not those contributing less than 5% are eligible for the TDA Plan. My opinion is that (and piggy backing off of the DOL's definition of a participant) that anyone eligible to defer more than 5% is a participant. But perhaps there is room to argue that only those actually contributing more than 5% are eligible for the TDA because that plan is only for those contributing more than 5%. We're trying to determine whether or not the TDA plan has an audit requirement (for the past several years ).

Plan moves from RK A to Best TPA. In connection therewith the plan documents are "required" (if the word is used loosely) to be restated in order to maintain reliance on a favorable opinion letter. Can this expense be paid by the Plan? I say "yes". Just wanted to see if others agree.

http://www.asppa.org/Portals/2/PDFs/GAC/ASAPs/14-13.pdf Am I reading this right that if I want to go back to 1997 for my 5500EZ's that I need to scrounge up each form for each year? I would have assumed that I could just enter the respective plan years on a more recent version! If the answer is "yes" where would I get them? Are they still on the IRS's site?

Under 408b2, changes to investment related disclosures must be made at least annually. Does the participant fee disclosure prepared cover those disclosures? I got the impression that legally, it is the other way around - that is, the annual disclosure obligation was required to facilitate the plan sponsor fulfilling it's 404a5 requirements. But as a practical matter, does the covered-service-providers preparation of the 404a5 disclosure cover this?

Can someone please remind me one more time why I tell clients to avoid auto enrollment at all costs? Every client I have that has gone down that road has gotten rid of it. It's OK for the big nationals with crazy robust HR Systems but for everyone else, it's not a good idea.

Well, if the source was rollover it would not make a difference either way. But otherwise I agree.

I assume that would be the sponsor ein even if they are with Great West or John Hancock...

Line 6a

From the DOL's Schedule C Q&A Q25: If a service provider discloses a formula used to determine its indirect compensation, is the plan administrator required to calculate or estimate dollar amounts from the formula for purposes of Schedule C reporting (to the extent that compensation described by a formula is not eligible indirect compensation)?No. Element (g) on Line 2 of Part I of Schedule C requires the plan administrator to enter the “total of all indirect compensation that is not eligible indirect compensation” and Element © on Line 3 of Part I of Schedule C states that the plan administrator should “Enter amount of indirect compensation.” Where a plan administrator receives a formula from a service provider for amounts reportable on Line 2, the plan administrator may enter “0” if that is the only indirect compensation reportable in element (g) on Line 2. The plan administrator must check “yes” in element (h) of Line 2, and attach a statement describing the formula(s) that is labeled “Schedule C, Line 2(h) formula description.” Where a plan administrator receives a formula from a service provider for amounts reportable on Line 3, the plan administrator may enter “0” if that is the only indirect compensation reportable in element © on Line 3. The plan administrator must include in element (e) on Line 3, a description of the formula(s). My Question With respect to the bolded paragraph, has anyone seen such an attachment? Great West is indicating that their comp is NOT eligible indirect on their schedule C report AND that they provided a formula. Has anyone included the attachment described above? Also, why is GW saying that it is not eligible indirect? I had heard that the 408b2 should have made everything eligible indirect? Perhaps it is, and they just did not reprogram their systems?

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?