austin3515

Are we saying that filing the 5500 without the attachemnt is not even considered filed? I would have thought it would be filing error, which is considered filed.

What is the difference between: 15 Recordkeeping and information management (computing, tabulating, data processing, etc.) AND 64 Recordkeeping fees Do I need both? Is one the service and the other whow they get paid for it?? Same thing for: 27 Investment advisory (plan) AND 51 Investment management fees paid directly by plan

Is there any prohibition on an adopting employer adopting a safe harbor plan when there are fewer than 3 months left in the Plan Year? The plan year IS more than 3 months...

Any discussions specifically about the integration though? I can understadn the diversification stuff, etc. being top of the agenda, but I'm just curious if they are really cracking down on the integration portion of the disclosure.

Has anyone ever heard of any enforcement initiatives, etc. regarding the PPA requirement that plans disclose the existence of social security integration on the quarterly participant statements? I imagine people must have gone through DOL audits where these disclosures have at least come up.

Is anyone using the "Attachment to 2009 Form 5500 SF Line 10a - Schedule of Delinquent Participant Contributions"? 1) If so, why or why not? 2) Is this information the DOL can access electroncially or does a person need to open a pdf file and look at it? For example, will including this form make less likely that the DOL might send a letter inquiring regarding whether or not the late depoit was corrected? Generally, I prefer to do less work unless there is a compelling reason to do more work. Is there a reason to do this?

Finally cleared last night

I just read a note written by an auditor regarding this very topic: Per discussion with TIAA-CREF, and review of the TIAA-CREF Auditor Guide, ____notes that the realized and unrealized gains and losses on the TIAA Traditional Annuity represents interest. The TIAA Traditional provides both guaranteed interest and discretionary interest. The guaranteed interest is recorded as earnings in the trust report. In order to record the discretionary interest, the TIAA-CREF recordkeeping system unitized the TIAA Traditional Annuity and the discretionary interest is recorded as realized and unrealized gains in the trust report. Accordingly, _____ will reclassify the realized and unrealized gains to interest income

I'm up to 9 submissions failed on one of mine Just checked it about a half hour ago.

My step mother used to have a bumper sticker that said "Question Authority." But I suppose, in the future, I could do that

Do the same expenses get reported BOTH as an expense and then again as payments from an insurance carrier under the compliance questions...

The instructions say" "Check Yes if this plan is a defined benfit plan subject to the minimum funding standard requirements of Section 412." It then goes on to talk about the need for SB. In the absence of that diagnostic, would anyone have come to the conclusion that this box should be left blank? Now, if the instructions had been worded: "If this Plan is a defined benefit plan, check Yes if..." I would be walking away with my tail beween my legs; but it doesn't say that. Has anyone else been answering this no?

Solo DC Plan. When I answer the question 10 ("Is this a DB Plan subject to minimum funding") as "No" a validation error states "No entry should be made for this item when the plan is not a DB plan." I'm ignoring that validation error as being ridiculous. IT's a simple yes or no question, and the answer is obviously no. Do others agree? I haven't looked at the instructions in a while, but I'm curious to know if anyone else has any thoughts.

OK, money is at John Hancock, with an RIA. RIA Fees are reproted by Hancock as direct expenses AND it is also reported on their Schedule A reprot, because it is BOTH a direct expense AND a payment by an insurance carrier. The schedule C instructions are very clear that you don't need to report on C fees already reported on Schedule A, but I don't see that sort of exception for this...

1) Can someone please explain why the TIAA-Traditional account shows Realized and Unrealized gains on the statement of changes in net assets? It seems unusual for a guaranteed investment. 2) Related question: Why don't the CREF Mutual Funds have to pay any dividends? Is it because 100% of the investors are tax qualified plans?

So I assume your client bought the stock of Company B? The grace period wouldn't apply to an asset purchase, because they would just be regular old new hires subject to your regular eligbility. I suppose you could exclude company B's employees as a class exclusion, and still be eligible for 410(b)(6)© grace period, but you should double check on that.

How are other TPA's dealing with this? I assume all other TPA's struggle matching this stuff up as well? I have tried linking the DOB and the last 4 digits of the social as well, but of course the DOB's are not always accurate either... Just wondering if anyone has a novel solution I have not heard of...

If you bought the stock of the company, just don't have the new company added as an adopting employer. You have the 410(b)(6)© grace period under which you do not have to pass coverage (runs through last day of the plan year following year of acquisition). If you're using a standardized adoption agreement, inclusion of these people will be automatic based on the boiler-plate language, so that could pose a problem for you. If you bought the assets of the company, as long as you don't elect to include service with the prior entity, then yes, they would be subject to the plan's eligiblity just like any other new hire would be.

Has anyone ever asked TIAA CREF why their downloads do not include full SS#'s? IT makes working with their downloads incredibly difficult to match up with a client prepared cenus... Are they planning on changing this? I assume they've been inundated with this complaint...

This is what TAG said: There is not formal guidance. In the past, IRS officials have informally indicated that a short eligibility period may be permissible to the extent a newly hired employee was considered "on probation" for an initial period (e.g. 30 days or 90 days). However, note that the language in the draft 403(b) prototype language issued by the IRS with Announcement 2009-34 does refer to an employee who is not excluded as being able to make deferrals"immediately upon becoming employed by the Employer". See below.

My understanding of the POA instructions is that there would still be some basis for siugning a 5500 under a POA (assuing you conclude that the 5500 is a tax filing, which so far has been supported by all of the PTIN discussions!, and assuming the signer is unable to sign b/c of sickness, absence from the country, etc).

Honestly, I think I would go for it and see what happens... But thanks for pointing that out. When you're wrong, you're wrong

The DFVC is not available for the EZ's, which according to prior threads on the topic, has generally been a good thing, since you just request abatement from the penalty and often times they penalty is abated, But lucky you, you filed the regular 5500, so you would be able to use the DFVC. Eligiblity is based on the type of form, not whether or not you could have chosen to file the EZ.

Are you a third-party service provider? It seems unusual that if you were you could be the plan administrator. Are you determining whose eligible for the plan, remitting deposits, approving distributions, etc? If you're not, it seems hard to imagine that you really are the plan administrator. But we too have clients who want nothing to do with any of this stuff (one in particular comes to mind!!), so if there is a way, please let me know.

But you see, I have the exact same argument because 410(a) is EXTREMELY clear on what is a permissible service based eligiblity requirement. How annoying... I still someone could produce even a Q&A session where the IRS has confirmed this. Who knows, maybe it will show up in the OCtober Q&A.