austin3515

Yikes, I'll edit my post

I recommend posting responses to the following thread, where it was originally posed: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?s...36027&st=15 Otherwise, we'll have answers in two places...

Deleted comments on fees (see next post) Just so people appreciate Amy's advice: -Within the Davis Bacon definition of the ERISA Outline Book, Amy is credited as the primary source of the content (examples, etc.) via an article she wrote for the ASPPA Journal (May/June 2003) which I myself read based on that recommendation (I highly recommend it if you administer any such plans). -She's one of the experts at TagData -She authored of the Coverage and Nondiscrimation Answer Book (with, of course, Tom Poje). -She works at McKay Hochman, frequent poster, of very informative Q&A's on the benefitslink newsletter. I can't remember a post that had this many heavy hitters! Maybe Paul Schultze will weigh in?

As long as you meet certain notice requirements to participants you can get rid of the j&s requirements in your plan. Based on what you've told us, you're getting incorrect advice.

I'm not sure you can report them for wanting to do something. If you fire them as a client, you will never really know whether or not they did this terrible thing. Reporting them, in my opinion, would be unethical, because they may indeed come to their senses based on their firing and not go through with this sham termination. But I could not agree more that this is not worht whatever the fees.

So you're opinion is that the preamble to the regs vetoes the GUST opinion letters? Does anyone have the 2007 EOB? I'm curious to see if he has changed that paragraph, because Sal doesn't mention the preamble to the regs in the 2006 version.

Okay, so I went right to the source: The ERISA Outline Book. According to Uncle Sal, Blinky is on the money. The IRS has publicly stated at many Q&A sessions that this approach is a no go. However, the book also indicates that many GUST approved documents include this provision, and a favorable letter should insulate any claims by the IRS that this is not allowed. However, he did suggest that this will be eliminated in the EGTTRA restatements. See page 11.471 of the 2006 edition.

Participant dies, and their niece is the beneficiary. She is 12. Obviously their parents should be the ones filling out forms etc. How can I prove that the parents are indeed the parents? I'm guessing birth certificate, but has anyone gone any further than that?

Gotcha - I was focused on the I-9 portion of your request. I hadn't even noticed that you indicated they asked for the employee's file which is NOT a reasonable request. In fact, depending on what's in their, you might be violating HIPPAA by doing so.

The point is to get evidence of the employees birth date. Referencing the Plan's records regarding dates of birth isn't auditing at all. Now getting an I-9, that's auditing!! The employee signed it and everything! They probably even kept a copy of the driver's license! Most employers have I-9's for all employees, particularly companies started after 1986. I audited 100s of plans (if you added up the 4 years I did this) and this was NEVER an issue with any of my clients. Okay, so if you ask for 20 I-9's and they only track down 18 and you need to do alternate procedures for a couple of participants. I think you are making way too big a deal over a simple request. My question regarding payroll was intended to remind you that the auditor is going to have access to information that is much more confidential then I-9's. I pose the question again, why are the I-9's more confidential then the payroll records?

Back in my auditing days, we would ask for I-9's on all clients. IT's the easiest way to verify DOB and often date of hire (i..e, when did they sign the I-9). One thing auditors hate to hear is "you can't have access to that." That's a BIG red flag Sounds like you have a good relationship with the auditor, and nothing seemed out of line, otherwise they would have made a bigger issue about it. Out of curiosity, why are I-9's more sensistive then payroll information?

Is there a web-site that anyone knows of that describes the withholding requirements for those states with mandatory withholding?

Sure failing to disclose SS integration is definitely on par with, say, dealing crack

If you're going to be on the losing side of an argument, it's not bad to be standing alone with Craig Hoffman (and Bird too, I think)! I forgot to mention that at the ASPPA Northeast Benefits Conference he publicly requested that the DOL clarify that the disclosures applied only to DB plans.

4th quarter!! Fabulous news!!

In the interest of full disclosure: We just checked with our ERISA attorney and he vetoed my idea :angry:

Well I think it's owner discrimination. For example, imagine if this was an employee. Would the IRS really make you refund 69% of pay to the employee? I think not.

There is some debate, but it is commonly accepted that you can test on either basis (OE's or not) regardless of what the document says. Similarly you can aggregate two plans (in the same controlled group) or regardless of what the document says. This conclusion is based on the fact that ADP testing must be run using the same method as coverage testing, and plan documents do NOT need to describe how they will pass coverage.

Thankfully, that ridiculous schedule T is no longer required

I should point out that I have been generalizing my comments, and big does not necessarily mean bad. Some of the big providers are actually excellent at this. What's more, the plans with huge asset bases generally are provided very expert advice/resources. It's the middle market plans (0 - $5,000,000ish) that should be very cautious.

I think it's got more to do with providers over-selling their services, and Johnny not knowing the right questions to ask. For example, the salesman says "oh yeah, we'll run ALL nondiscrimination testing for you!" So John Doe assumes this means that actual thought will go into the process, and this of course is where he has made his mistake...

How can I resist... Permissive Disaggregation refers to testing "otherwise excludables" separately (i.e., people who've worked less than a year, and who are under 21--also know as people who rarely contribute). Since the employer can elect which method of testing to use, and because the method used was acceptable, I just can't see this being an operational defect. So I think the HCE's are basically stuck. This is a classic example of the importance of a TPA. The "Data PRocessor" type recordkeepers expect the plan administrator to request testing on otherwise excludables! Like John Doe business owner has any idea what that means...

But really, are you going to take the advice of a 3 eyed fish that exhibits poor grammar?

Believe it or not there are plans that allow for participant direction that have all investments in one brokerage/trust account and hire a TPA to perform allocations quarterly using a separate software program. Then in addition to allocating the money to each participant, and to each source, they neeed to determine which invesments (and the related income) are allocated to each participant (at the source level). This is often done for smaller plans that wish to minimize investment expenses incurred by the plan (through economies of scale), while still allowing participants to choose their own investments. It's a nightmare though, and I do not recommend it. We beg and plead with our sole client that does this to change to a more sophisticated platform.

I can assure all that I am VERY ethical (often to the chagrin of my clients), and I do indeed believe that the interpretation I have set forth is reasonable. What's more, I have already discussed with the owners here obtaining the opinion of an ERISA attorney before moving forward. I was hoping someone would say this!! So by that rationale, if the Plan was integrated at ANY TIME IN ITS HISTORY, then the Plan needs to include the integration disclosures, right?