austin3515

If it were me, I wouldn't worry about the three months interest. You're talking about $150 total (because 1% a month is extremely high). You get props for being so thorough, but in my opinion, with the loans, there is some wiggle room. So I find it very hard to believe that under audit, this would give you a problem... Another option would be to have the new am scheudle at the new company be $15K plus the accrued interest. Also, make sure the new am scheudle is within the 5 year max, including the 3 month holiday.

We've done 10% of whichever is greater, BOY assets or EOY assets. Don't even need a calculator

How is everyone treating a davis bacon plan, with a safe harbor match, that is top-heavy? Are you treating the TH exemption as invalidated because the plan no longer consists solely of SH and deferrals? Something about that conclusion doesn't feel right to me.

That';s the way it works...

I think this is the section ESOP Guy is referrign to. "If the plan administrator and the plan sponsor are the same person, only the signature as plan administrator needs to be included on the form. Electronic signatures are not required for electronically filed Forms 8955-SSA. " ESOP, I'm not sure it's saying the employer NEVER needs to sign the form. One might even read into this that employer should manually sign the form before electronically filing on their behalf (I choose not to read it that way, but they certainly haven't come out and said "employer's don't need to sign the SSA"). We're sending clients a copy and telling them to sign it, and file it in their records.

"The Filing Information Returns Electronically (FIRE) system will be down December 16, 2011 through January 2, 2012, for programming updates. It is not operational during this time for submissions." just two weeks before the extended deadline... Bravo, IRS. Bravo. Can't wait one more month to do your updates? You can wait 2years to release a form DUE A YEAR AGO, but can';t wait one more month for this currently operational system to be updated. Classic... From the IRS new article, with updated FAQ's on 8955-SSA's http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/epn_2011_6.pdf

I'm not trying to get anything for free. I just want to find what I'n looking for relative inexpensive amount of money. The Accurint from Lexis NExis is basically what we're looking for, but we don't have anywhere near the volume to pay their minimum monthly rate.

We're looking for a service where we can punch in the SS# and find out their last known address. We want to be able to do unlimited searches for a fixed annual fee. I've seen versions that are out there, but I am curious what others are doing to find these lost participants. At the present, there is a big hurdle for us in terms of doing these searches - who will pay the $10 fee. I want our staff to be able to do it whenever needed without a care in the world. Any thoights? I know there are some programs out there that are hundreds of dollars a month (background checkers, etc) which is way out of our price range for this!

Audited plan has brokerage accounts for some of its employees (the rest are at a daily val platform). I assume there is some level of revenue sharing going on between the funds and brokerages. What are other people doing about this?

Bird - We ahve until been hesitant about putting them in the SPD on our software because that means every time we change fees we need to go into our document software to change them. I've now created an offshoot to our Access database, where I can generate an appendix inside the same system that is used to track what our fees are, who pays them (client or participant), etc. As far as the fees in the brokerage accounts go, it seems to me that it's hopeless to even try to attempt this. We have plans that have accounts with 7 or 8 different broekrage accounts (we hate them bt they exist). Hopefully people like you wll convince them to update their statements, but I suspect that will be difficult even for them, especially when the same platform is used for a small number of retirement accounts, but a huge number of retail accounts... But I am comforted by the fact that there is no penalty for non-compliance. Proof of damages is required in court (according to Sungard) and with small plans (most commonly invested in brokerage accounts) that is exceedingly unlikely. So we're going to do the absolute best that we can, but I just can't see an efficient way to track this. I don;t think the financial advisors even know the all the possible fees within an account. And brokerage accounts are a vital tool in the small plan market, and I'm not going to look at this as a death-blow to the option.

http://www.relius.net/news/TechnicalUpdates.aspx I'm running out the door, but above is a link to Sungard's technical update pages. If you look at the participant fee disclosure write-ups (there's like 8 of them in there) you'll see that there is mention that many of the disclosures only apply to Desgnated Investment Alternatives. Honestly, I don't remember which one it was in, but if you do searches for "brokerage windows" you'll find it pretty efficiently.

The way I see it, some of the annual disclosures will be covered by the fund companies, but the rest will fall on us. For example, what is the fee for a loan/distribution? The fund company/recordkeepers don't know what our fees are, so we need to disclose them. I can't see how some of these things could be incorporated into an Americahn Funds statement. Also, bokerage accounts are exempted from an awful lot of these rules. Also, I know sungard says they spoke to the DOL, and the DOL is saying all ELIGIBLES need the annual disclosures regardless of whether or not they have a balance. But I think a reasonable interpretation of the rules is that you are not eligible to direct investments if you do not have a balance in the Plan. Does anyone have any thoughts on that?

So we're trying to figure out how to comply with the new participant fee disclosure regs, and what we keep coming back to is this: What are the fund companies doing? It seems that the effort between us as the TPA and the fund company needs to be somewhat coordinated. Has anyone heard from Hancock, American Funds, Great West, ING, etc. etc. what they are doing, so that we can fill in the gaps? Or are they still trying to figure it out? Thanks,

(4) Final plan year. A plan that terminates during a plan year will not fail to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (e)(1) of this section merely because the final plan year is less than 12 months, provided that the plan satisfies the requirement of this section through the date of termination and either— (i) The plan would satisfy the requirements of paragraph (g) of this section, treating the termination of the plan as a reduction or suspension of safe harbor matching contributions, other than the requirement that employees have a reasonable opportunity to change their cash or deferred elections and, if applicable, employee contribution elections; or (ii) The plan termination is in connection with a transaction described in section 410(b)(6)© or the employer incurs a substantial business hardship comparable to a substantial business hardship described in section 412(d). 410(b)(6)© relates to changes in the controlled group, like an acquisition. Therefore, the plan must either finish its 12 month year, or terminate IF THEY SOLD THE STOCK OF THE BUSINESS. If it was an asset sale, I recently learned that it would probalby be OK to simply terminate the plan effective 12/31/2011, since the plan year will still be 12 months, even though there are no employees for the remainder of the year. There is no such thing as a "de facto" termination. But the regs clearly leave no room for reliance on safe harbor in a merger situation. If it's a stock sale, you might consider puttng of the merger until 1/1.

I think I'll do everyone on the SSA, because I can't thionk of good way to keep track of who to D and who not to D every year. Therefore, I think life would be easier if I reported everyhone, so I could just D anyone who took a distribution. Now, if I'm excluding participants from 5500 reporting altogether, I would feel differently. But most of my audited plans chose to include everyone because it was just easier, and they clearly needed an audit anyway.

Am I the only one annoyed that they haven't clarified in simple plain english that you should not check an extension box? I mean I don't think I'm being foolosh for asking if I should check the "Automatic Extension" box for the AUTOMATIC EXTENSION that was granted And by the way I'm not asking if I should use the special extension box, because they DID come out and say not to use that in their FAQ's. It's just surprising that what I think is an obvious question was not answered. But it's not the first time, and I doubt it will be the last...

mbozek - Those were the good old days. ERISA 403b's (of which I have several as clients) are now required to file full 5500's, and also must file the 8955-SSA.

Where did Sungard say that? I can't find it anywhere...

Which extension is everyone checking? Automatic or nothing? At first I thoguht Automatic, but that seems to relate to piggy backing off a corporate tax extension. The 8955-SSA FAQ's indicate that the special box should not be used, except for disasters, etc.

Since when is logic a prerequisite for this stuff?? Ha ha... In spite of your unquestionable logic, TIAA itself has created an "SSA Report" - only problem is they need termination dates updated for everyone (including removing those rehires) which is just too complicated to expect accuracy (at least for the smaller institutions)... But I agree that these are IRA's and all of this stuff is over-kill.

For those of you using the FIRE system to batch file (FT Williams, etc), are you having the client signing the SSA, or just sending thenm a copy. FGT Williams is sayiong that this is a "best practice" but if it's not a requirement, I would like to know that as well.

This organziation is treating them as eligible. I'm the one questioning whether that is appropriate. It seemed to me most of your post was supporting NOT counting the service, but then your last comment suggested countign it. Would you mind clarifying for me what your conclusion is? I am actually more inclined NOT to count the service. Think about a ski-resort, as opposed to a school. The lift operator, or even the ski-lodge manager, is scheduled to come back in the fall once the winter ends. I can't imagine anyone would suggest counting the summer as service. Another mind-boggler for me. I can't believe this is not addressed somewhere.

So you're suggesting I count the hours then, as though they worked for 12 months? If someone was eligible for health insurance, I'm certain the health insurance would continue for the entire 12 months (I can't imagine telling employees they don't have insurance over the summer). This just seems different then 8 weeks of paid vacation, especially if they could opt to be paid over a month period instead. Does this latter point change your conclusion? It seems hard to believe that this is not addressed somewhere...

They stick to their scheduled hours pretty well, especially the non-full-timers who are the issue. But when I spoke with Sungard they told me NOT to credit hours over the summer because their job is based on a 10 month year. What are your thoughts on that?

Faculty at a school are only working September to May, 20 hours a week. They are paid over a 12 month period. May the employer treat the the summer months as paidt time off, creditign them ith 20 hours a week as paid time off for the summer months when they are not teaching? So for example, if we credit the summer months as hours of service, then they will exceed 1,000 hours (vesting years, etc). If we do not count the summer months, they are below 1,000 hours. Does the answer change if they elect to be paid over teh school year, as opposed to the calendar year? Seems like a gray area...