austin3515

I'm assuming what is being referred to as a TPA is more likely than not a recordkeeper that also does the TPA work. And 20bps for recordkeeping I don't think is out of line with what I've seen. Does the 20bps include the recordkeeping services, MD Benefits? (i.e., maintaining web-site, sending out quarterly statements, etc)

just to be clear, I'm not advising a client not to restate. Rather the client did NOT restate, and we're trying to figure out if any response is required. We are putting them on our prototype so going forward they're ok. (it's a brand new client for us by the way )

This is verbatim the answer I got from an ERISA Attorney who suffice it to say "knows his stuff." But if someone can show me that "section 401Whatever says thou shall restate every 5 years" I would LOVE to read it. It seems to me that any such requirement would be mandating Form and not Content.

It sounds like the due dates of my inteirm amendments may have been different than what the attorney may have thought originally. Where do I find the due dates for amendments for plans that did NOT submit for a DL on their 5 year cycle?

Can someone please explain to me what is required for an IDP Plan Document which was NOT restated on-cycle for EGTRRA, but DID make all of the amendments required (EGTRRA, final 401k, rmd, ppa, HEART, etc)./ The client obviously never submitted for a DL (which WOULD require restatement), but I didn't think every plan was automatically required to restate as a condition of qualification. This IRS web-page does not indicate anywhere that it's non-amender program is for plans that did not RESTATE their document - only that it is for plans that have not made the required amendments. http://www.irs.gov/retirement/article/0,,id=205524,00.html Thanks in advance...

The whole story is that the client was caught off guard by this "new charge" from their provider, and their employees were notified of the new charge by their provider, so to make amends with the ee's they said they would pay the fee for just the one year. And the new charge is only related to new money this year, so the 415 issue is not a concern here. Truth be told, the provider could have the fee paid by the employer, but to do so for just one year would have been cost prohibitive for the vendor.

I just read it and I don't see any support for this in there either. Not even sure why it was provided as a relevant site... Bird, you;re thinking this is a contribution, right?

We've had the same issue. We just respond and tell them the right number. FWIW.

Yes, but do you reduce earned income starting at 245K, or do you reduce it at the uncapped figure. That appears to be the question. FWIW, I refuse to reduce from the capped figure because I am sure I would be the only one doing so . Well, it wouyld be and mbozek!

That;s a completely unrelated topic. BEfore the AO, if a plan had ANY investment in the TIAA Traditional, they were NOT showing it as an asset of the Plan. This AO says that you are required to report it as an asset. Handling the interests of terminated participants is a separate and unrelated issue.

Just to make sure no one ever calls my bluff, I'll just do the amendment. But thank you very much for the contrasting opinion!!

So Bird, you are saying that the deduction rules do apply the same way to Schedule C's as they do to corporations? Mbozek seems to think otherwise? I don't know who to believe!! Two reliable sources with contradicting answers

I have to say though Relius's admin and documents have been fantastic, and their responses are similarly successful and timely. I'm the first to throw em under the bus on the 5500 nonsense they sent out (we switched to FT for 5500's and 1099s), but their documents and admin products AND support are absolutely top-notch. With respect to documents, I submit a question and a fairly high percentage of the time I get a call from a "pension celebrity" to discuss/answser my question. Maybe the others have similar quality of service, but I doubt I will ever find out!

"So What" just that I need to do an amendment, worry about nondiscrimination, etc. That versus essentially no work at all. That's so what. I didn't give up on the project because it was a contribution .

Are you saying the max deductible applies differently to schedule C businesses as opposed to all other forms of entities?

I think TIAA placed its argument in the document that I posted. I have since learned from TIAA that in order to be eligible for this reporting, the sole investments must be variable annuities, as opposed to CREF Mutual Fund. If you go to TIAA's web-site, the vairable annuities are in the section that includes The Stock Fund, and the Bond Fund. The target retirement date funds, etc., are un the mutual find section. Investmetns in those funds are not eligible for the exclusion. I'm finding tha tmost of my plans are using the CREF Funds anyway. Here is the web-page I was referring to that shows the TIAA-CREF Variable Annuities. http://www.tiaa-cref.org/public/performanc...eId=tcpub-admin

But wouldn't you agree that the formula itself which provides for the highest level of match at just 5% of pay, that it should essentially be deemed to be nondiscriminatory?

I see... And admittedly was not aware of that requirement! But the test is a facts and circumstances test of "Effective availability." What would exactly is preventing the NHCE's from contributing 5%? I suppose the issue would crop up if the match was 10% on the first 10%, and then 200% on the next 2%. I guess I recognize the issue under this more aggregious set of circumstnaces. So Ithink I cam to the right answer, albeit for the wrong reasons I learn more from these boards than anything else I do!!

Everyone is benefitting from the exact same formula. Your thinking of different match levels depending on how many years of service someone has. In that case, you need to run BRF testing (which uses coverage principles) to make sure that the match formula is not being provided to a discriminatory group. Perfect example would be "only employees with 20 years of service get the most generous match" when only the owner has 20 YOS. That's when there is a discrimination problem. Also, if the IRS thought tiered matches were discriminatory they would not have used it for the Basic Safe Harbor MAtch formaul.

Sure, why not (other than the obvious reason that it's crazy). Everyone gets the same formula, so BRF is not an issue. just the ACP test.

Beleive me, you have no idea... TAG says anything the employer puts in = employer contributions even if reimbursing admin expenses. They provided the following citations if anyone is interested: Revenue Ruling 86-142 and Private Letter Rulings 9124036 and 9252029

Plan's recordkeeper wants to charge 20bps to participant accounts. They cannot override their system to charge the employer instead, so the employer wants to reimburse the plan for the charges. Is there any problem with this? Because it is a direct reimbursement, I think it should NOT be treated as a contribution.

Upon further review the question very clearly references a "discretionary" contribution. Thanks for the link to that older post. Very informative!

I had not picked up on that subtlety actually. You're right, they seem to be udner the assumption that the diocument requires 5% for the staff, and therefore an amendment is needed to increase from 5 to 6. So now when choosing between increasing from 5 to 6, or adding additional eligibles, that of course is a "normal" -11g amendment. So that does make it different than a plan that includes a discretionary contriobution feature.

See the last question on page 5 of the attached. Q_A___2010.pdf