austin3515

TPA Jake - We are a TPA who could easily double our fees and be a 316. We struggle with what additional value we are adding. I can already mail notices without being a fiduciary, and I'll charge an hourly rate to do so. Compile the census? Give me a payroll download from your payroll provider and I'm good to go. But listen, to rebeat a dead horse. If you have a client who neglects to tell you who the family members are; or if the client census does not use the proper definition of compensation; or if your client failed to automatically enroll a participant who is eligible; or if they reported incorrect hours for someone and the vesting was incorrect; or if they hired a temporary employee without telling you this and did not recognize that service for eligibility; or if the client deposited Johnny's money into Susan's account and Susan already took a full distribution by the time it was discovered; or if the client forgot to send in the 401k withheld from the bonus run; or if the plan document does not exclude bonus, but the client failed to withhold 401k and therefore match from the bonus; and on and on and on and on; who is responsible? I've just listed the kinds of problems that have gotten my clients into trouble. And as a 316 I cannot figure out how to take responsibility for any of it. Have you had a critical matter arise related to a Summary Annual Report, or the formality of signing a 5500? How about a critical issue related to a fidelity bond? the answer for me is no and no and no. So what the heck would I be charing all of that money for? Listen, I hope you have an answer, because I would LOVE to double my fees, and that's the God's honest truth.

Well, they very clearly said the only thing that matters is was the individual employed on 12/31. I think they were pretty clear on that point. And by golly if someone is terminated 12/30 then they are not employed on 12/31.

Well, listen, if I get a census that says the term date is 12/30, I suppose I'm going to stop short of asking for the letter of resignation, if it's all sthe same to you :). I'm just going to assume the employment relationship ended on 12/30.

Thanks Bill! Sounds like the IRS is saying (Example 4) that the person is not employed on 12/31 in this example.

Mojo, your assumptions are correct.

Calendar year plan requires employment on last day of the plan year. The employee works on December 30, 2016--a Friday. Was the Participant actively employed on the last day of the plan year? Seems we can go either way with this one...

Yes, nongovernmental. Classic federal governemtn to who have 2 plans nothing alike defined in the same code :)

Which provider?

Another wrinkle: Let's say the plan is a pay-period match, and bonus is run as a separate payroll. Now what?? Amendign to include bonus does nothing for a pay-period match in this scenario because no 401k is withheld (i.e., because bonuses were excluded for everything).

i.e., in one brokerage account, with the allocation of gains made once a year at plan year-end, correct?

I can't think of any reason not to commingle a 457b and 457f investments? OK, there are different vesting rules, but it's no different than a 401k FBO account with PS and 401k. Let me know what others are doing. Also, it would be one single Rabbi Trust for both plans.

And I let them in early, so they are otherwise excludable, but that is a very good point.

So you've actually done that before then? I want to make sure I'm not a trailblazer!

3. Definitely yes. Of course ask, because never assume. But I already know the answer you will get. Best case scenario is new money goes to new vendor and you can politely ask the people at TIAA to transfer their money to your new platform. And good luck with that. Our experience is teachers view TIAA-CREF as the benefit itself. Our clients are extremely frustrated with them but the participants never want to go. Now granted, most of my clients are less than $50MM in assets. I have on in the 80 or 90 range, and there is a different level of service up there. I'm sure if you get into the billions they'll set up an office at your school :).

Appendix B, Section 2.07(3). It says you can limit the corrective amendment just to those who actually made contributions improperly. Instead of developing some convoluted system of identifying the "one" person (an NHCE) can we just name their name?

I definitely believe you, I was just curious what would need additional funding since it's already there. Probably they don't even have enough people to keep up with day-to-day let alone implement a change. I've been in those situations before for sure...

What do you mean by this? I guess I can see where reprogramming the entire form would be a very costly endeavor, but why so for the compliance questions already there?

Ha, I have a couple of slides on the new 5500 coming down the pike, and my last point is "will this ever happen??" For example it seems hard to imagine Trump forcing every small health insurance plan to file a 5500. That policy seems, well, dumb. Really really dumb.

No way, not in this case.

Putting together a training with an IRS/5500 update. Any word on the status of the Compliance questions? I know they are n/a for 2016, I'm just wondering if there is anything published about when perhaps they might be effective. Any official guidance, etc.?

You know, it really was just an unwillingness to acknowledge that ____happens, and a further refusal to take into account that "hey, this must be a good guy/plan sponsor if they're voluntarily coming in to the program." My impression was really "you better watch what you say and how you say it--you're dealing with an investigator, and this is an investigation." Even though this was not a big deal, this in their eyes was actually a very very serious matter.

late deposits. One of them was for a miniscule amount of late deposits for which we were "asked" to file. The fact that the dollar amounts were miniscule is of absolutely no concern to them.

I will never do it again unless I absolutely have to. It has been excruciating. I have been through 2 of them now and each has been extremely difficult.

Assuming the OP means what we all think of as "interns" (half of us probably had internships for crying out loud) and not a rouse to impose an undue wait time, then I say keep it simple and exclude interns as a class.

Thank you for mentioning this, I was aware of this issue.