austin3515

I don't get it though. What could 414(n)(4)(B) possibly mean if not recognize service? Maybe I'm the one missing something completely. It just seems like such a simple statement there should be no ambiguity at all. Where is the ambiguity?

Incident submitted and I will certainly let you know what they said!

That's what the EOB says too (no clear guidance), but Derrin Watson wrote this article and as of yesterday still stands by it. What is so surprising to me about all of this is that when you read that line of the IRC, I just cannot understand what that language would even mean if not to recognize the service of a temp when you hire them full-time. If you don't recognize that service, to me it must mean that that language has no purpose in the world, which cannot be (in my opinion). https://benefitslink.com/cgi-bin/qa.cgi?db=qa_who_is_employer&n=135 Example: Sally Switch was Sam's [e.g., Sam’s Staffing Firm (a temp agency) in the examples] common law employee when she started working for Recipient [e.g., Sam’s client using Temps] on 1/1/1999. Recipient hired her as a full-time employee on 9/1/1999. During the period from 1/1/1999 to 8/31/1999, Sally was a leased worker. Sally was never a leased employee because she did not satisfy the substantially full-time standard. She became Recipient's common law employee on 9/1/1999. She is credited with three years of service [as of 12/31/2001]. Because of 414(n)(4)(B), we count the period she was a leased worker.

Nah that's not it. That language deals exclusively with leased employees and whether or not an employer wants to voluntarily not apply the full-time/1 year requirement. My question deals with when they become the common law employee of the recipient. Appreciate the help though!!

By any chance can someone point me to the language in the Relius Corbel Doc that includes the provision to recognize the service of a temp-to-hire performed under the agency? i.e., 414(n)(4)(B). This the provision that says if someone is under the primary direction and control of the recipient, pursuant to an agreement, but does NOT meet the "substantially full time for a year" requirement, we nonetheless need to recognize their service for eligibility and vesting. I've scoured the document and cannot find it anywhere... There are a lot of "incorporated by reference" but nothing about this provision.

Trust me I know, really was just being lazy 😂

We did the Cyle 3 last year. And by the way Peter, if someone was going to sue a client, my assumption is they would have the decency to ask me for the most recent plan documents. It's the least they could do if they're going to put us to all that trouble!

Well it's funny you say that because it occurred to me separately that they are actually going to be going through a conversion later this year and we should be able to double up with the notices for that. Thanks BG!

Just being lazy I guess... And trying to save a tree on top of that (no one has an email...). You've talked me into it. I'll add that I actually think it is more confusing because it gives the impression something has changed when it reality nothing has changed. Having one giant bank serve as trustee instead of another giant to me sounds like nothing.

I know I know. It's a plan with over 1,000 people though. How aggregious would it be not to send it??

Plan being amended to change corporate trustee. Would you do an SMM or no?

https://www.efast.dol.gov/5500search/ The interface is much better and there is a new feature to allow filtering by all sorts of criteria.

Mine makes no mention of such a requirement.... Still it would be nice if there was an article or a reg reference or something like that. If anyone has such a thing, please shout out!

Should the plan document address what happens to the match when excess deferrals are refunded? 😁 Our document provider never would have included a provision to forfeit the match if it was not required by law. Sometimes your head spins reading through those documents, but reading the message board responses of brilliant industry experts tends to be more efficient 👍

Well it doesn;t reference in my opinion the key issue which is the commingling. If there is a business purpose (union / non-union, different legal entities, salaried/hourly) then seperate plans are separate plans, no doubt about it, and no aggregating for audit counts. It's putting all the money in one recordkeeping contract that gets fuzzy.

I was speaking to a large recordkeeper recently who of course will remain nameless. All I know is that this is a thing that is done. I personally do not agree with it because the ERISA definition of a plan about commingling assets, etc. I doubt the Master-Trust option is ever feasible in this size plan. So I don't like it personally. I get the motivations though, obviously the pricing is much better and no blackout period. See if you get a letter from a lawyer on fancy letterhead is my advice to the TPA. It's what I would do.

Participant maxes out his 401k at Employer at $26,000. He starts a new job in December with immediate eligibility and a match. My advice is go ahead and contribute to get the match and then request a refund of your 401k after year-end. My recollection (which I cannot confirm) is that such a refund request would not kick off an orphan match situation requiring match forfeitures. The logic of course is the employee could request the excess refund from either plan. Anyway if someone can set me straight one way or the other I would appreciate it. Completely different of course then someone getting matched on 401k over $26,000 in the same plan or even for the same employer.

Looking for billing software that works well with quarterly billing, flat fee+ per participant formulas. Anyone had great success with a particular package? Not quickbooks.

Legal in state where the entity does business. Are there any recordkeepers who will work with these businesses? I know it's a whole thing I just am curious to know if its doable.

Plan had basic safe harbor match in 2020 but payroll company calced as 100% on 4%. epcrs says I can amend retro to increase a benefit but 2016-16 says I can only increase safe harbor match by 10/1 (right?). which one wins?

This is so funny, I was just coming out here now to ask this EXACT question, LOL. With respect to BG's answer it seems to me it is the answer that is beyond reproach. Harm comes only to those who do NOT file when it was required - not to those who DO file when it is not required. Anyway, I'm going with it.

Impossible. The rationale is the mutual fund expense is intrinsic to the investment itself. IT's a cost of operting the "company" that you are investing in. Even though it is not the same, it is tantamount to reimbursing a participant who invests in IBM for the rent IBM paid on its real estate. I know it's a crazy analogy but it is spot on. You are investing a "business" that is in the business of investing money and one of the expenses of that business is to pay a fund manager. Anything you do in this regard would be an employer contribution, and with it goes everything that applies to employer contributions (document provisions, testing, 415 limits, etc). In other words, forgettaboutit!

Not preapproved I don't think. Code 3D not used on 5500, and they filed for a determination letter. Again I have a feeling the same template document is used for governmental plans where this would be fine. The document is definitely written by this particular national provider, not an attorney. I probably should clarify as of right now I have just the SPD.

Under elapsed time if someone was hired on July 26 2021 works for a week, quits and comes back on July 1st 2022, then on July 26 2022 they have a year of service. under this plans rules they do not which I think is a real issue.

OK but more to the question I guess - you agree this violates ERISA's vesting rules, right?