austin3515

T Best post I've read in a long time... Fabulous.

Confession: I had to look up the word obverse and it was used correctly.

:D Mojo, you do make me laugh out loud...

This Plan has fewer than 5 participants.

Yes, but I think it is unfortunate you're suggesting "failure to abide by the law" is a universal concept, where you either do or you don't. Have you ever gotten a speeding ticket? Let your registration lapse? Rolled through a stop-sign at 10PM on a deserted street? You know what they say about people in glass houses Mojo!

Man you can be tough on good, hard working, law abiding citizens sometimes.

Part of it too is that we switched this plan to a prototype where we can do the amendments. The Plan was New comp and until the EGTRRA restatements we had to use the Volume Submitter (and back then we could not amend for them). I will say this, if the penalty is more than $250 I will be incensed.

Oh, I'm sure that would result in a very amicable audit! Mojo - I didn't research those SOL's - I found them all listed in a single article. Clearly there is a difference between signing the final 401k reg amendment late, and for example, doing a bottom up QNEC under the old rules in 2014. One is clearly a clerical error while the other is a blatant disregard for the rules. The latter is fair game, while the former smells like never being able to sleep at night. Perfection is a very tough standard. Just asking for a little forgiveness, and forgive me, but different standards for IBM versus John Doe Manufacturing with 10 employees.

So an auditor is accusing a plan sponsor of late amendments from 2006/2007. So it occurred to me, wow, we have a statute of limiations for crimes, but we're looking over our shoulders forever with amendments. I found this on a webpage, it's a listing of statutes of limitations for crimes I consider far more egregious than a missed Final 401k amendment: Federal tax evasion (U.S. Code 26 Section 7201) – 6 years Failure to file a tax return with the I.R.S. (U.S. Code 26 Section 7203) – 6 years Major fraud involving at least $1 million against the federal government (U.S. Code 18 Section 1031) – 7 years Non-violent violations of federal terrorism laws (U.S. Code 18 Section 3286(a)) – 8 years Arson (U.S. Code 18 Section 3295) – 10 years Embezzling funds from a federal financial institution (U.S. Code 18 Section 657) – 10 years Using false or fraudulent citizenship papers (U.S. Code 18 Section 1423) – 10 years Failure to amend in a timely manner for EGTRRA, or TRA 86: 100 million bazillion years. Do I have a point or what??

You would presumably lose reliance on their opinion letter.

It seems like the providers the advisor has been talking to will not write these annuities for cash balance plans. Anyone have an educated guess as to why?

It wouldn't be a fiduciary violation merely because the document restricted where the money could be invested. Mind you most the so-called "free documents" are for Solo 401k's anyway and last I checked they were exempt from ERISA :P

Anyone see an issue using an individual annuity to fund a cash balance plan? The attractiveness of this option is that the paying rate on the annuity reasonably mirrors the crediting rate in the Plan. But in reviewing the paperwork it appears that it is requesting an individual's name as the annuitant? I assume that would have to be the Trustee's name, but is that ok?? Can you use an individual annuity in this way? IS there a "Cash Balance" plan specific annuity provider?

Does anyone have a nice template that they work with which you use to tell clients "Fund A is being replaced with Fund B and here is the explanation" or "Fund B is being eliminated because no money is the plan" or "Fund C is being added as a new option" It seems to me I'm not the first person to realize that a template for this would be quite helpful, especially one that envisions all of the different scenarios, so you can just delete the sections that do not apply.

I like it a lot... It's a good enough story that you could tell it with a very straight face upon audit. Thanks!

That's just employer contributions. 408p5a(I) is the problem. HAs anyone ever heard of a "late" deposit being an issue for a self employed individual in this situation? I have to imagine it happens ALL THE TIME that people deposit in April when they file their taxes...

I know, I know, 30 days after the end of the plan year-end. But isn't that just based on the DOL's plan asset rules? For deduction purposes, shouldn't they have until they file their 1040 or business tax return?

Anyone have any info on either EFAST 3 or the DOL's project to completely revamp the 5500?

OK, thanks.

Actuary retires from Actuarial Firm. His partner at actuarial firm takes over his cases and signs his SB’s. Does this get reported on Schedule C as a termination of actuary? The instructions are clear that an enrolled actuary is an individual, but does not clearly define what “termination” means…

That is what we do too, but because so many providers will indicate "Recordkeeper" I was hoping the DOL clarified in a more "obvious" manner. Almost all of them indicate their service provider role as the relationship.

Preparing a presentation on 5500's and curious to know if anyone has seen this?

So the recordkeepers always enter "Recordkeeper" on their Schedule C reports under the field for their own relationship to the Employer. I believe the DOL has said publicly that that's not what they mean - they mean something beyond their relationship as a service provider (which relationship is already obvious). Can anyone point to something? I already checked the 2 FAQs and found nothing...

Geeze, if I look at the words used by the IRS I just don't see how it doesn't fit in perfectly. If I don't defer, I don't get the match. If I get the match, my expected payment is greater than what I otherwise would have received. I have to tell you, if the option were provided to me, I would take the match. I like my job, I have no intention of leaving. I fully expect to be here for 3 more years. And that's an extra $2,500 for just being patient.

"Section 1.409A-1(d)(1) provides that an amount is not considered subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture beyond the date or time at which the recipient otherwise could have elected to receive the amount of compensation, unless the present value of the amount made subject to a risk of forfeiture is materially greater than the present value of the amount the recipient otherwise could have elected to receive absent such risk of forfeiture." You're telling me a 50% match would leave doubt??