austin3515

Employer pays 100% of employee health insurance. If the Ee opts out of health insurance (let's say they are covered by their spouse's plan), employer will pay them additioinal compensation equal to 50% of what the premiums would have been. 1) I assume this is totally and completely unrelated to the deemed 125 compensation issue, correct? 2) Can these opt out benefits be considered a fringe benefit, and therefore excluded along with all other fringe benefits (assuming the document excludes fringe benefits). (I think yes, but let me know!). I just wasn't sure if there was a technical definition of fringe benefits.

The IRS blessed ENTRY dates, not eligiblity periods. Point of clarification Question: Are entry dates in a 403(b) plan permitted, or does entry have to be immediate upon date of hire for deferral purposes under the universal availability rules? It is possible to interpret Treas. Reg. § 1.403(b)-5(b) as allowing entry dates? Reg §1.403(b)-5(b) provides "A section 403(b) plan satisfies the effective opportunity requirement of this paragraph (b)(2) only, if, at least once during each plan year, the plan provides an employee with an effective opportunity to make (or change) a cash or deferred election...". Is this an annual entry date, or more of an annual notice requirement? Answer: The 403(b) statute does not have specific rules to accommodate entry date requirements, but it is reasonable to have entry dates to make it administratively feasible. So, monthly entry dates work, maybe quarterly, but probably not semi-annually.

In reading TIAA's Auditor FAQ's, they indicate that many plan sponsors have concluded that terminated participants with balances may be excluded from the participant counts (and therefore line 6c on the 5500) based on the instructions for line 6c, which says you may exclude anyone whose benefit is guaranteed by the insurance, company etc. Has anyone been using this position? TIAA's write up is at the bottom of page 9 of the attached document. The crux of it is this: After a participant separates from service, the employer generally has no obligation to make further contributions and will not control when the participant receives distributions. Instead, the terminated employee will exercise his or her own rights under the terms of the TIAA and/or CREF annuity contracts. In effect, the separated participant is in the same situation as if he or she had received an in-kind distribution of an annuity contract from a trusteed pension plan. Since this is the case, a number of employers take the position that a participant who has separated from service is no longer a plan participant. Since there is no guidance from the Department of Labor to the contrary on this point, we believe that excluding separated participants is an acceptable approach. Note, however, that if the separated participant has account balances in mutual funds under a trust or custodial account, the employer cannot take this position and must treat the separated participant as a plan participant. The instructions to the 2009 Form 5500 indicate that the “other retired or separated participants entitled to future benefits” category does not include any individual to whom an insurance company has made an irrevocable commitment to pay all the benefits to which the individual is entitled under the plan. tiaa_cref_faq__s.pdf

They referred specifically to the DFVC Number provioded when the applicaction was approved, so I don't think that would be it.

You're saying that because they need to have an opportunity to defer the max under universal availabiltiy? Every prototype I've ever seen (ok, so it's only 2 - TIAA and Corbel) gives you the choice of whether or not to include it.

I apologize, but I cannot tell if your suggesting it is the participant's or the employer's responsibility? It's your parenthetical note that seemed to throw me off...

Who is responsible for figuring the amount of someone's eligible catch-ups in a 403b? The participant or the employer? The IRS publication 571 appears to be worded such that it is the participants responsiblity. So need the employer simply get representation from the employee?

We received correspondence from the IRS where they are asking for our DFVC Number that was given when the DFVC was applied for and approved. Anyone know where/when you get this number?

Geeze, what a great point on the Form 945... I suppose the issue that one does reflect taxes and claims for refunds, doesn't it...

http://benefitslink.com/IRS/revrul2011-3.pdf Today they were released!

Where are people planning on getting their new engagement letters for complying with the new DOL Fee Dissclosure regs? I know some of you work for big Company's and your legal departments are probably writing their own, but for the whee little TPA's out there like me, what are you doing? Is anyone expecting a free version from say, John Hancock, or perhaps provided by Corbel? I could ask them directly, but I'll bet someone out there knows!

I think the professional service requirement for some reason only applies to corporations? Don't qupte me, but I do think there is a distinction. But I do believe that if they are corporations that there is a professional service requirement. Also, since they are selling material, I think that you could suggest that capital (i.e., the materials being sold) is a material income producing factor, and therefore C is not a service company, and for THAT reason, no A-Org could exist. Just my opinion of course! I think management company is a very likely possibility here, I would look at that one closely. B-Org might also be a possibility since sales is a function historically performed by employees.

What do you mean by Internet?

Anyone know where I can find the covered compensation for 2011?

This DOL FAB suggests that before you can transfer anyone's account to an IRA in a terminating plan, you must use the IRS letter forwarding program. Are people actually doing this, or am I the only one? Or are people assuming that non-responders are simply that - nonresponsive and defaulting them out to an IRA within X number of days. http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/regs/fab_2004-2.html

I processed mine last night, I'm tempted to dispute the charges

Email from Brian Graff to all ASPPA Members: Happy Holidays everyone. As you know, the IRS has been indicating in public comments that the PTIN registration requirements will apply to preparers of the Form 5500. Consequently, we have been engaged in ongoing conversations with the IRS on exactly how that would work. In addition to testifying at a public hearing, we have had several private meetings with them to discuss the significant problems that could result from the over broad application of a preparer registration requirement to the Form 5500. In these meetings, we have been emphasizing the information return nature of the form and the relatively limited amount of information on the form that actually impacts a tax return. Most significantly, we have been pressing the point that if too many staff are required to register it will ultimately result in an unnecessary increase in administrative costs to the detriment of retirement plan participants. As these conversations have continued, including some back and forth on the challenging issues involved, we are beginning to believe that senior IRS officials are starting to conclude that it would simply be easier to exempt the Form 5500 from the registration requirement. Because of this, we are no longer recommending that service providers register their staff in order to take advantage of the education grandfathering rule, because we believe, at this point, that it is more likely than not that the Form 5500 will be exempt. Let me emphasize that we have not received anything official from the IRS, and it is certainly possible that they could change their mind again. If we sense anything different, we will let you know immediately. We also recognize that many of you incurred costs to register your staff and we are very mindful of that. We based that prior recommendation on what we were being told emphatically by the IRS at the time, namely that preparers of the Form 5500 would be subject to the registration requirements, and we wanted to make sure that people were in a position to take advantage of the grandfathering that applied to the educational requirements. So, as you enjoy this time with friends and family it appears that this is at least one issue that you know longer have to be concerned about. Once again, Happy Holidays! Brian Graff Sent from my iPad

Form 2848. First page under "Unenrolled Preparer" I attached the instructions. i2848.pdf

OK, so why do the DOL regs on plan assets mention SIMPLE IRA's? If I may again be so bold, the answer is that they ARE subject to rules regarding plan assets/investments. The only rulkes they are NOT subject to are participation and vesting? Am I right?

Whoops, my bad, here it is, just where you said: http://frwebgate3.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/T...action=retrieve

If I may be so bold, where in here would I find that? ERISA 206 didn't seem to be on point, and I didn't see SEP's mentioned anywhere in 202? http://benefitslink.com/erisa/crossreference_short.html

In my ERPA quest, what I was somewhat disappointed by is that anyone can representa taxpayer with respect to a 5500 if that person prepared the 5500 AND if the 5500 is under examination, which of course is 95% of the situations that we would need to be able to represent. Anyone have any thoughts n that? I know we would be in trouble on takeover plans, and issues arising NOT related to an audit, but again that does seem to cover quite a bit of the situations. I've heard that sometimes the auditors still insist on dealing with an enrolled preparer. Any thoguts?

Can someone tell me why a SEP can have a 3 year eligiblity period? I'm looking at the DOL's definition of an employee bnefit plan, and it carves out IRA's as long as there are no contriubions made by the employer, which of course a SEP would have. So why doesn't statutory eligiblity apply? TAG says they are totally exempt from ERISA becauyse it's funded throiugh IRA's, but of course the DOL Regs specifcially reference SIMPLE IRA's. I'm just trying to obtain a deeper understanding - I don; think I've uncovered a grand statutory boo boo...

But isn't that more a reflection of the fact that he 2010 form was released before the ptin regulations? Also, there's only going to be one field for ptin, and generally at least 2 people are involved. So for example, Joe TPA's PTIN might be on the form, but Susie Tech still might need a PTIN.

With attachments these days though I'm a little more apprehenisve since it is SO public... At least on Free ERIS no one could see any attachments,. Aklos, I have a hard time believing anyone would read the attachment even if you dutifully attached it. Instead, I believe they would send out whatever form letters they want to send out.