msmith

I like that idea, Bill. I have also had issues where the Trustee has died. So, he is not likely to be getting his mail or email anymore. Also, as the TPA, we are typically the last to know; and it is generally a couple of months (so more than 30 days).

As a folllow-up statement, I did call the DOL last week; and am still waiting for a reply.

Thank you, jsample. The Client received an email from the DOL. Part of it read - "your submission included an attempted payment of $750.00......" I do not feel comfortable with them using the word "attempted".

Have any TPA's electronically filed the late fee, using the TPA's Banking information? If so, or not, what issues have you had - or why are you hesitant to do it? I was clearly the fault of their prior TPA - but as a matter of courtesy, we would like to pay the fee. Thank you.

What if A and B have terminated employment? Are they no longer Trustees, by default? They are not likely to sign something and return it. As a reminder, TPA's usually find out about this months after the termination.

Agreed. Make sure the Plan Document is in order as to the new Plan Sponsor and update the SPD.

The beginning of that 5500 Section does say "during the Plan Year"

I had this happen to one of my plans several years ago. Of course, the participant was fired. To avoid prosecution (and probably 15 months in prison). She obtained a cash distribution (had a large account balance) and paid the Employer the funds she embezzled.

I just prepared Form 5330, where the penalty is less than the cost of the stamp. I agree, it is ridiculous. How must will it cost the IRS employee to process a payment of 19 cents!

I thought the terminated, < 500 hour rule did not apply to the 401(k) portion of the Coverage testing.

Tom - this is just the pick-me-up I needed today. Thank you (always) for you expert and patient opinions, with no snark. God Bless!

It was discussed on one of their ERISApedia webinar from 06/04/2019. It was their recommendation to file under VCP.

This question was asked of Derrin Watson and Ilene Ferenczy. They indicated that it could only be done via VCP submission.

I ran into the same issue with another large Recordkeeper, where the PS assets were in a commingled brokerage account. However, participants could only borrow from their Deferral source. This was explained to the Recordkeeper. They turned off the online loan portal and we process the loans with our TPA software. When we fax the Loan Request form to the Recordkeeper, we are required to include a notation that the participant's total account balance is sufficient to support the requested loan proceeds.

We are providing a copy of the Basic Plan Document with each Cycle 3 package we produce. However, Clients being Clients, we are hesitant to provide a copy of an Adoption Agreement with all un-collapsed provisions. I can just see it now - "oh, we made the change on the full Adoption Agreement, didn't we tell you."

The Document Provider we will be utilizing for the Cycle 3 restatements has a notation at the top of the first page, on the Adoption Agreement - "[Collapsible Version – Elections that are not selected by the Employer and provisions that are not integral to the Plan are not included in the Adoption Agreement. A complete version of the Adoption Agreement has been made available for review to the Employer. The Employer certifies all provisions and elections appearing in this Adoption Agreement were taken from the complete version of the Adoption Agreement.]" We are utilizing the Collapsed Version and do not wish to supply the Plan Sponsor with the Adoption Agreement with all unselected provisions. We can see where the Client might just use this to "amend" their Plan, without informing us of the change. Obviously, we could add a watermark - but as you know, this will not stop some Clients from using it anyway. How are other people handing this? Thank you.

We report the RIA compensation on both the Schedule H and the Schedule C. I believe Janice Wegesin outlined this in one of her JH E-Tutor webcasts.

We have a few Clients that are fee-sensitive to the price of a very inexpensive amendment. We have sent a Questionnaire to all Clients to request what their preferences are to each separate CARES Act provision. Some have answered "no" across for all. I was just thinking that the LOA provision under the current Loan Program would permit participants with current loans to suspend payments.

Any constructive advise would certainly be appreciated. Mike - I am not here to be insulted -but to learn and possibly assist othes.

From the Plan Document we use: For purposes of this definition, "authorized leave of absence" means an unpaid, temporary cessation from active employment with the Employer pursuant to an established nondiscriminatory policy, whether occasioned by illness, military service, or any other reason.

Why is it a mistake? Also, as the TPA, we take direction from the Plan Sponsor. They would be telling us it is a LOA.

Thanks to all who responded. Here is another CARES Act loan situatation: The Participant Loan Program that we use (part of the Document package), permits a Plan Sponsor to suspend loan payments for an approved Leave of Absence. I am thinking this could be used instead of the CARES Act suspension. The difference being no extension on the term. Of course, it would be up to the Plan Sponsor to advise us of the LOA's. Thoughts?

Voiding a mid-year amendment to eliminate safe harbor feature Employer X properly amends its calendar-year plan to eliminate the safe harbor nonelective contribution effective July 1st and provides notice to all eligible participants on June 1st. Sometime between June 1st (the date of the notice) and July 1st (the effective date of the amendment), the business hardship that prompted X's amendment is relieved such that X can continue the safe harbor nonelective contribution. X adopts a second amendment before July 1st that voids the first amendment, and notifies participants accordingly. The effect of the second amendment is to provide for the safe harbor contribution without interruption. The notice to participants is provided in a timely fashion, so that there are no pay periods for which participants were making deferral decisions with the understanding that the safe harbor contribution would not be provided. Has the plan lost its safe harbor status for the plan year? Does the answer matter if the safe harbor contribution were a matching contributions where a business hardship wasn't needed in the first place to suspend or reduce the contribution? As long as the first amendment is voided in time to prevent an interruption in the safe harbor contribution, and participants are notified on a timely basis, as noted in the question, the plan may be treated as a safe harbor 401(k) plan for the plan year. The answer is not dependent on whether the safe harbor contribution is a nonelective contribution or a matching contribution. The IRS agrees with the proposed answer because of the facts stated. Adequate notice is the key so that the eligible employees' deferrals decisions are not compromised with the rescission of the amendment.

A Plan currently permits loans for hardship necessity only (safe harbor standards). If they are going to permit loans under the CARES Act, will they have to amend their loan program to permit loans for any reason (possibly for the CARES Act duration)?

Audit can be paid for from Plan Assets, if document permits. Don't like to use this option - but it is available for some Plan expenses.