austin3515

Can someone explain from 30,000 feet how I would go about filing a VCP on behalf of a client through that pay.gov system? Do I need to have them send me a check for the fee, so that I can pay with a credit card? Is there another way? We used to just have them sign things and send everything back to us. I certainly don;t want my clients data entering an 8950 and following a 15 step set of instructions to file. I appreciate any help y'all can provide.

Well I mean that has to be one complicated process though, no?

That's a good point, maybe he was just rushing me off... I'll push him a little harder...

Plan auditor determined late/timely based on a time frame of 5 business days (apparently that was what the client told them). All of the corrections were done based on 5 business days and now we are helping with a VFCP. Would you file a VFCP application using 5 business days as the criteria for lateness? [They ask right on the VFCP application essentially "when do you think your contributions are due?". I'm concerned if I file it's going to open a whole other can of worms. i.e., "Seriously, it takes you 5 days?? Please provide a 27 page memo describing why you are so slow! And let me see ALL of your deposits so I can use it as evidence to disprove your ridiculous assertion!" I embellish of course, but probably the only question is to what degree I embellish. There is a kernel of truth I am sure? Beginning in 2019 by the way their new standard is 2 business days.

Maybe I'm reading too much into your response based on some prior experiences, but I can't help but wonder the reason for your precise choice of words? Is this not what is best for you and your clients?

This is one of those amazing things where it is unbelievable that this obvious question has not been explicitly addressed... I definitely plan on continuing with the position that the participant should not be his own trustee, because it seems the danger lies down the other path.

So you think the Executive Director can be the Trustee of his own account and not have constructive receipt, correct? That's what I had done a few times in the past until and ERISA Attorney spooked me into advising against it.

Bump up this old one... So would at least be a safe to statement to say that disregarding service in this scenario would be "very aggressive." So for example, if there was ever going to be a regulatory review of this, the only exposure would be if you did NOT recognize service when they conclude you snhould have. And honestly, I read the regs and I just do not see any room for interpretation on this point. " all employees of such corporations shall be treated as employed by a single employer." Same language in the IRS reg. There are NO limitations entered. Someone before mentioned the reg does not indicate that you must recognize pre-relationship service, but because there are no limitations on that very broad statement it definitely feels like you'd be adding language that just isn't there. i.e., "all employees of such corporations shall be treated as employed by a single employer EXCEPT that service before the affiliation existed can be disregarded." You have to impute that language to reach the conclusion I think.

The model Rabbi Trust from the IRS seems to limit TRustees to the following. "a bank trust department or other party that may be granted corporate trustee powers under state law," Does this preclude an individual from service as the Trustee of a Rabbi Trust? I would not think so, but I note that they use the terms "granted CORPORATE trustee powers..." Also, Do people agree that an individual cannot serve as the Trustee of his own accounts because in so doing he would have constructive receipt of the funds?

My only issue is going to be an SSA. We won;t be doing 1099s. So you used the Ee ID and did not have to enter anything in the SS# field. Is that right?

We have a client that wants to have us work without their SS#'s. I know Relius has an Employee ID feature where DERs can be done just with EE#'s. Has anyone ever taken this approach? How did it go? I assume the whole point is to allow us to do the work without SS#'s. I assume the SS# can be blank? I realize there will be some inefficiences, but I think I can work around those. Obviously it's not a 10 person plan so worth a little extra effort!

They said they dont have anything but gave this list of vendors. I suppose they must know something good about them if they felt comfortable emailing me the names. Anyway, in case anyone else is looking for a solution here. http://www.languagealliance.com/ http://www.transperfect.com/ http://www.languageworks.com/ http://www.futurosolidousa.com/ (specifically Spanish employee benefits) http://www.perfecttranslations.com/

Does anyone know if Relius Documents can prepare spanish notices? I guess I doubt it but curious to know if anyone knows the deal...

"sign an amendment that has been properly adopted by the plan sponsor" In other words, the plan sponsor signs the Adopting/Board Resolution approving the amendment. Then the 3(16) can sign the amendment. Is that the idea? That makes sense to me because it is now documented that it is a sponsor action. Of course I would not be able to explain why the sponsor would not just sign both, but there you go. Thanks!

So it sounds like we are on the same page that the response I got (which is that the 3(16) can sign a particular amendment) sounds odd... Esentially your point is it is possible in theory but should definitely be avoided. I agree...

Can a 3(16) Admin sign discretionary amendments on behalf of a client?

1) Good luck with your employees on that one! 2) Isn't there some regulation or other that basically says if you exploit the rules your plan is disqualified? That's the rule I would be afraid of. The switching on and off and the coordination of the owners contribution to contribute all 401k during the Safe Harbor Plan Years would not pass the smell test. An interesting analogy though is that I know some S-Corps do something similar with the timing of comp on a fiscal year end entity to only pay Social Security taxes every other year. But I was always equally suspicious of that approach even though it has nothing to do with me.

Yup. That would be positively awful advice. But probably a good example to demonstrate how it works. It actually gets quite a bit more complicated than that if you have prior year ADP refunds offset by catch-ups. It is a pain.

Let's say my IT Company charges me $5,000 a month for their services. Due to a mistake I made, I paid them $6,000 a month. You better believe I want my $1,000 back. How is this any dfferent? It should be even more so because as a business owner I'm not burdened by fiduciary status to myself. A Trustee is.

Forgive me for stating the obvious here, but if the engagement letter doesn't address this, then it's a very bad engagement letter. But in the absence of anything to the contrary, without a shred of doubt, the excess MUST be returned to the Plan ASAP and on a frequent basis (quarterly?). I don;t think any other conclusion could be reached. The TPA would just cut a check and deposit the money to a Plan suspense account to be reallocated or to pay other expenses, like an audit. There is no way possible to say "yes I'm getting more than I am entitled to, but I'm holding onto it for the Plan and by the way I'll use it for cash flow purposes."

I mean let's assume the total amount is "reasonable." Perhaps the engagement agreement should just say "Our fees are equal to the revenue sharing." The fiduciary signs it, and then that's that. If they found it reasonable, then it is reasonable barring something completely obnoxious. It is very difficult to assess what a reasonable fee is and therefore very difficult to determine what an unreasonable fee is. I suppose it would likely be similar to the Supreme Court's ruling on profanity, meaning we would know it if we saw it. There are some really pricey TPA's out there though. Just because revenue sharing happens to exceed what your standard formula might be does not make it unreasonable. Again barring something obnoxious, the onus is on the fiduciary. I mean lets face it, in capitalism the goal is to get paid as much for your services as you can. The check on our "greed" is the fiduciary oversight.

Son of a... I was in aisle 6!!

Anyone know?

If I remember this was right when the user fees went through the roof and my client refused to pay the increased user fee. It was a large plan. We ended up doing the "please waive the excise tax approach" to the IRS (which worked).

Thanks for letting me know!