Bird

I don't disagree; it's best to be accurate. And I'm not sure why I'm so flip about this when we're so anal about everything else...I guess I think it's more of a statistical database kind of thing.

Right, it depends on the document provisions. Often for non-daily valued plans, contributions such as 401(k) deferrals that are deposited throughout the year get credit for half of the total annual deposits in the determination of basis. (So if the beginning balance was $100K, and contributions were $16K, the basis for that source would be $108K.) That should be something you can set in your admin software.

Generally, I agree; if it's a feature in the document it should be listed. But we permit optional matching contributions in virtually all of our plans, yet rarely use that feature. Speaking for the ones that I handle, I can't swear that I have entered that code on every single one...

Somehow I doubt the bank is setting up a true annuity payment, especially from the DC plan - what assumptions are they using? Unless it's a very large plan that does this routinely, I wouldn't think a bank would be handling this for the DB either. Once or possibly twice we bought an annuity from an insurance company to provide a true lifetime annuity benefit.

I think the answer is yes. I don't think they pay any attention to attachments and wouldn't bother. I'm sure I've answered that yes and don't remember it ever generating any kind of inquiries.

I would pay it now. But you need to make sure the custodian doesn't issue a 1099 (unless they could do one for 2006). (I guess I might want some proof that the participant claimed it in 2006...)

Interesting situation; it could be an opportunity or a sinkhole. In the long run, I wouldn't be very comfortable working for a business that is owned by a non-administrator/actuary type. Especially a broker or agent, sorry. As far as education, I used to get weekly updates from a company called RIA (Research Institute of America?); not sure if they are still in business under that name. I found that to be too expensive for what I was getting and dropped it. I had the Erisa Outline Book online version for a while but decided to drop that this year as I found I rarely if ever used it. (In large part because of the info and knowledge available right here.) I get by on ASPPA asaps and other ASPPA communications, conferences, Sungard updates (which to be honest I don't find that helpful as a rule), online Code and Regs - and BenefitsLink. If you're not an ASPPA or NIPA member you need to look into that if you are serious, IMO. Feel free to PM me if you want to discuss further.

Correct. Any distribution during a year is based on the prior 12/31 val. If the account is small relative to the total, we don't worry too much about the fairness of it. If it is a large balance, then we might do an interim val; certainly if there were significant losses that would impact others disproportionately. It's also a good idea, prior to the interim val date (or 12/31 if you know of a pending distribution), to liquidate an amount approximately equal to the pending distribution so you're not constantly chasing your tail in a fluctuating market.

Very few. But seriously, how valid is a form that says "yeah, go ahead and file all of my forms from now on?" Plus, it would appear to transfer liability to the TPA; we'd be preparing and filing forms without any pretense of having the employer confirm the info is accurate. Not good at all...

We are getting one each year/I don't think it has changed. And I think it makes sense to get one each year anyway - with Qs about PTs and such, how can a sponsor pre-authorize filing a return they haven't even seen?

Good advice above. This is relatively easy stuff if you're in the business, but extraordinarily complex if you're not. Also I am skeptical that "annual reporting" includes 5500 reporting by the current brokerage firm. I don't think I've ever seen a brokerage firm do that. FWIW.

No, as long as it is fairly valued. No, as long as it is fairly valued. I'm not trying to be cute but that's how it is. The problem, of course, is determining the fair value.

I think you can do whatever you want. Deferral elections are not plan forms.

Technically, this was money contributed by the employer in 2012 and should be allocated in 2012. I think using the term "forfeitures" is misleading when you are talking about contributions for ineligibles, although I can see it winding up in a forfeiture account. If it's a small amount you might want to do as you suggest, but it wouldn't be quite right.

In theory I think you are supposed to pay a proportionate share of tax on retirement plan distributions based on where you lived and were taxed when it was earned. I think I remember reading about California going after people who moved out of state but don't recall how successful they were. If you lived in PA, which does not give a deduction for 401(k) contributions, and moved to NJ (a crazy thought) you could probably (eventually) convince the NJ taxing authorities that you don't owe them tax on your 401(k) distributions, and it would be worth the fight. On a practical level, the address on the 1099-R is going to dictate who thinks they should get the tax and whether or not it is worth battling the state in which the income is received.

I agree. It's not at all about what feels or sounds good. It's what the document says to do.

Good idea. While the plan is ongoing, I would "simply" pay those entitled to distributions in cash. If the asset is fairly valued, it doesn't really matter if it is liquid or not. Of course the big issue is fair value; you didn't say it directly but it's sounding to me like it is being carried at an inflated value, which is definitely problematic. This is where it gets touchy - as a TPA, I'm comfortable saying "look, you bought this for $100K and we all know it's not worth that right now. You (the trustee) need to tell me what is fair value." If you don't have that conversation, and keep using $100K because that was the original purchase price, I can see some liability (at least perceived) because it's like you are valuing the asset. (Trustee: "Hey, we bought it for $100K and the TPA just kept using that number; nobody told me we had a problem other than it was illiquid.") Ultimately it's probably best to sell it and be done with it. Unfortunately investors often cling to the idea that something is worth more than the market says it is. If you can get a PTE and get a (the) trustee to buy it, fine. Or if you can ultimately distribute it in-kind to a (the) trustee, then that is fine too...as long as it is fairly valued.

Fort William. There might be something available in another form of document.

Just curious; what is the reasoning behind this and how do you do it? Our documents call for a trustee, no exceptions. Isn't the person/entity choosing the investment platform every bit as responsible as the trustee would be?

We would do two separate allocations of the gain/loss (thru 9/30 and after 9/30), but maybe/probably just show the net total on a yearly statement, especially if no one else got a 9/30 statement. I do not believe it would be appropriate to allocate the remaining gain for the full year, carving out the physician. A val date is a val date and once it is passed that's your new beginning balance for the next period.

If the net error is $4 it's de minimis in my book.

A little late on this and it has been largely resolved, but just for the record, the IRS website has a pretty good explanation. It confirms what's already been noted, that using the DOL calculator without the VFCP submission really doesn't cut it. That said, I agree with others that the practical thing to do is to do just that (use the calculator and move on without filing).

FWIW, my interpretation of my document would be to test rolling 6 month periods each month. i.e. "month" means "calendar month" and not 30 or 31 days (or 28 or 29 days). I don't think it's too common to have an employee right on the edge like that, plus a non-12 month eligibility period, so it doesn't bother me too much that it's not nailed down better.

The language in our (Ft William) Vol Sub plans is as follows. Note that option iii says "...Hours of Service in a [my emphasis] _____month period..." I looked in the Basic Plan Document and didn't see anything to indicate that means the first ___ months only, so I think we'd have to look at every 6 month period (Jan-Jun, Feb-Jul, etc.). Whatever your document says, I think you have to follow it literally. 11a. Minimum service requirement for Elective Deferrals/Voluntary Contributions: i. [ ] None ii. [ ] Completion of One Year of Eligibility Service (See B.11c for hours of service required for a year of service if the Plan does not use the Elapsed Time method in B.11b) iii. [ ] Completion of __________ Hours of Service (not more than 1,000) in a _____ month period (Not to exceed 12.) iv. [ ] Completion of __________ Hours of Service (not to exceed 1,000) within a twelve month period. v. [ ] Completion of __________ months of service (not to exceed 12 months--elapsed time only). NOTE: If B.11a.iii - B.11a.v is selected, the service requirement under B.11a shall be deemed met no later than the end of an Eligibility Computation Period during which the Eligible Employee completes 1,000 Hours of Service; provided, that the individual is an Eligible Employee on the applicable entry date. Service taken into account for purposes of B.11a shall be determined under the terms and conditions as is specified for determining a Year of Eligibility Service. NOTE: If B.11a.iv is selected, the service requirement under B.11a shall be deemed met at the time the specified number of Hours of Service are completed.

Hi all, I'm usually over on the retirement plans side of the boards but have a question about my own health insurance plan. There are just two of us on the plan, and I'm about ready to start a high deductible plan with an HSA for myself, and keep my employee on a more traditional plan (if you can call the ugly mess that the plan has become traditional...and yes, we're in NJ so we're allowed to split the plans as long as we are with the same carrier). Is there non-discrimination testing on the HSA part, as there would be for a POP plan or full cafeteria plan? Does it matter if the HSA is employer or employee funded or some combination? (I haven't looked at it for a while but I think it is problematic if more than 25% of the "benefits" go to HCEs.) Sorry for my ignorance and thanks for any help.