Bantais

From my experience with DOL audits, they tend to be fairly strict when it comes to the timing of elective deferrals, even for small amounts. Unlike the IRS, which sometimes allows you to rely on correction programs (like the EPCRS) with certain limits, the DOL often expects plan sponsors to correct late contributions back to the date the deferrals should have been made, regardless of statute of limitations. That said, DOL examiners will usually consider whether the amounts involved are truly de minimis and whether the plan sponsor acted in good faith once the issue was discovered. Since you already corrected the deferrals from 2000 onward and the amounts for 1999 are small, it may be possible to negotiate a resolution that limits the liability or reduces penalties. Having thorough documentation showing your intent to comply and the steps taken to correct the issue helps a lot in these discussions. In practice, many small companies end up paying the owed contributions for the earliest period if the amounts are minor, but you can often avoid additional penalties if you demonstrate prompt corrective action and cooperation. Essentially, it’s a balance between minimizing administrative burden and satisfying the DOL that you are acting responsibly. A good approach is to provide a clear explanation of your correction process, the relative size of the 1999 amount, and ask if they would consider this sufficient to close the issue. Often, they will be reasonable if the amounts are small and there’s a documented good-faith effort.

I see what you’re saying, and it makes sense why you feel stuck. The IRS reviewer’s strict interpretation of RMD rules has clearly forced your hands, even if, logically, the plan should allow more flexibility. It sounds like the real issue is the language in the document itself, rather than the underlying rules, which is frustrating because it limits what you can do for plan participants. Waiting for the next restatement seems like the only practical option for now, but it’s definitely worth pushing back and making sure the updated language reflects the flexibility you and Groom Law believe is allowed. Until then, following the document to the letter is unfortunately the safest course.

You’re right to be skeptical—this is a tricky area. Generally, under the IRS rules, if Joe is a 10% owner in a partnership with non-highly-compensated employees, it’s very difficult to establish a qualified pension plan just for himself without running into coverage issues. The plan has to satisfy nondiscrimination rules, which are designed to prevent owners from benefiting disproportionately compared to rank-and-file employees. Setting up an LLC to receive the income or recharacterizing the income as 1099 or K-1 doesn’t really change the underlying issue. The IRS tends to look through these arrangements to see if the substance is really the same—i.e., Joe is still economically benefiting from the partnership income. So creating an LLC or paying himself differently probably won’t help avoid coverage requirements. One potential path might be to consider a solo 401(k) or a defined contribution plan through an entity where he truly has no employees and is genuinely self-employed. But the moment the plan is tied to the partnership income or the partnership itself, coverage rules kick in. Bottom line: there’s no simple “loophole” here. Any plan connected to partnership income with employees will likely trigger nondiscrimination rules, so Joe would need to either accept a broader plan covering employees or establish a separate entity where he is legitimately self-employed and has no other employees. Consulting a plan attorney or ERISA specialist is essential before trying any of these maneuvers.

That’s a good question — and you’re right to be cautious. Generally, employers can encourage preventive health actions like physicals through wellness programs, but requiring spouses to get a physical as a condition of plan enrollment is a different issue. Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and HIPAA nondiscrimination rules, wellness programs must be voluntary. This means employees (and their spouses) can’t be required to undergo medical exams or disclose health information as a condition for eligibility in the health plan. Incentives like premium discounts are allowed, but outright requirements can cross into noncompliance territory. It might be best to advise your client to structure it as an optional wellness incentive instead of a mandatory requirement — that way they can encourage participation without risking a violation.

No worries, this is a perfectly fine place to ask that question. Yes, I’ve used Judy Diamond before — it’s a solid tool if you’re specifically targeting retirement plans or benefits administrators. The main advantage is that it compiles and cleans up the 5500 data, adds filters, and makes it easy to segment by plan size, industry, or geography. That’s something the DOL site doesn’t do well, as it’s more of a raw data dump. That said, it’s not cheap, so it depends on how much you’ll actually use it. If you only need a few lists or want to test a campaign, there are smaller providers or even some CRM integrations that can pull similar datasets. If your goal is consistent outreach or niche targeting in the benefits/retirement space, Judy Diamond is reliable — just make sure the ROI matches your campaign scale.

Haha, yeah, literally holding the certificate yourself could work if it’s just for nostalgia or display purposes. Using it as “wallpaper” alongside old Pets.com stock certificates is actually a pretty fun idea—turning a pile of worthless paper into a quirky office or home decor. As long as it doesn’t interfere with any official record-keeping or audits, it seems harmless and definitely adds character!

From my experience, the situation you describe is fairly common. Filing the Form 5500 late does not automatically disqualify a plan from the DFVCP. The key factor is whether the Department of Labor has already notified the plan of intent to assess penalties. If no such notice has been issued, the plan generally can still participate in the DFVCP even after a late filing. The late-filed Form 5500 is treated as "delinquently filed," so submitting it before engaging with the DFVCP doesn’t negate the plan’s eligibility. However, as you noted, filing first may increase the likelihood that the DOL will notice and potentially start the penalty process sooner, so it’s prudent to move quickly if planning to enter the DFVCP. It’s also helpful to keep detailed documentation explaining the circumstances of the late filing—like changes in responsible personnel or relocation—as this can support a reasonable cause argument if the DOL does assess penalties.

It sounds like you're on the right track. If the omission of the ACH/terminated participant repayment provision was indeed a scrivener’s error and the plan has continued to operate under the original intent, then a retroactive amendment is a reasonable and common correction method. The IRS generally allows for retroactive amendments to fix such inconsistencies, especially when there's a clear record that the plan was administered in good faith according to its prior terms. Just be sure to document the original intent, the error, and the consistent operation since 1/1/22. You may also want to consult ERISA counsel to confirm the approach and ensure no additional compliance issues are triggered. It does seem straightforward in this case, but validating with your legal team is always a smart step.

Thank you for the interesting question and for sharing your experience! I have similar approaches to working with AI. I completely agree with the limitations of using AI with personal data and in matters related to legal or regulatory responsibility - these areas require a very careful and professional approach, and AI does not yet replace experts there. For me, AI is a great assistant in routine tasks, such as editing and improving texts, writing drafts of letters or documents, helping with formulas and code. It is especially convenient to use AI for generating ideas and speeding up work with information. The idea of internal Q&A via custom GPT sounds very promising - this can significantly increase the efficiency of access to the necessary information within the team. In general, I try to use AI as a tool for supporting and speeding up work, and not as a final source of decisions, especially in critical issues. Thank you for raising such an important topic!

That sounds incredibly stressful — I’m sorry you and your husband have had to deal with this for so long. From what you’ve described, it seems like there are a few different issues tangled up here. As for why the person at Disney Fidelity suggested subpoenaing records after 2005: it might not be because your husband has a claim on contributions made after the divorce, but rather because it could help uncover if assets that should have been split under the original QDRO were somehow moved or disguised. Sometimes people roll funds into new plans or accounts, and tracing that history could help make sure the original division was actually complete and fair. Regarding your ex-wife’s motion to vacate the original QDRO, it sounds like her new attorney might be trying to undo the agreement to block your husband’s entitlement. Whether they’ll succeed depends heavily on your state’s laws and the original divorce decree’s wording. Courts generally don’t like to reopen long-settled orders without substantial new evidence or a procedural error. This is definitely something to have your husband’s lawyer (or a new one, ideally with QDRO expertise) look into carefully. They can evaluate if there’s reason to file a new QDRO or oppose the motion to vacate. It might also be worth getting a forensic accountant involved if there’s concern that funds were hidden. I really hope you’re able to get some clarity and put an end to this long ordeal. Good luck to both of you.

That’s a fair take, and honestly a pretty balanced critique. I think it’s important to keep in mind what these language models actually are: sophisticated pattern-matchers that generate plausible text based on enormous amounts of training data. They don’t truly reason or understand, so they can easily give you a beautifully worded — but completely wrong — answer. Where they do shine is quickly organizing general information, drafting summaries, or helping think through straightforward problems. For anything involving rigorous logic or deeper subject expertise (like the algebra example you mentioned, or complex compliance scenarios from BenefitsLink), they’re still hit or miss and always need human oversight. I’d say the technology is impressive for what it is, but you’re absolutely right that it’s not a drop-in replacement for actual expertise — at least not yet.