Bird

Agreed, usually the TPA firm does the 1099-R. But as an FYI, if the insurance company is National Life of Vermont, they do the 1099s.

Maybe it's just me but I'm having a hard time understanding the time line of elections and consent. They're getting a consent but not getting it..when? And it seems you're using the word "form" to mean both a form of benefit and election form (i.e. piece of paper), so I'm confused, sorry.

What is an installment form?

Am I missing something here? What do you mean when you say "...there was no designated benny other than his living trust"? So his living trust is his beneficiary? Doesn't it set up a trust at his death, with terms, or does it in turn just name the estate?

Keep in mind that the purpose of the form is so the SS admin can tell someone, when they start to collect SS benefits, that they might have uncollected money in a plan - could be 5, 10, 30 years down the road. So IMO it doesn't matter much. I think we were using 2010 values since they were most recent.

Odds are if there is a 501 hours requirement it is combined with an "or" if employed on the last day of the year (and therefore participants have accrued the right to allocations under the old formula), but you'll have to make that determination. There is a solution; it may or may not be attractive: you can create a brand-new profit sharing plan with the desired formula for this year, then merge the plans as of 1/1/12.

Well, fwiw, I've created an executive summary of the new participant disclosure rules, which I don't really expect my clients to read, but I feel I owe it to them. Then I'm picking off the easy ones: those who aren't self-directed, those on a platform that will handle most or all of the disclosures, and those with open-ended brokerage accounts, and writing a letter telling them they are ok or need to do some minor additional compliance (or in the case of the brokerage accounts, pushing the disclosure on to the brokerage firms), and including the executive summary as supplemental reading for those interested. And then, if necessary, making sure that any fees we get from the plan are (re)disclosed, with some commentary that the broker, brokerage firm, and/or recordkeeper might have additional disclosures but I'm not making it my problem. I'm just getting into the more difficult ones - the ones that have some limitations (e.g. retail accounts at a single fund family, not on a platform) and will have, or try to have, a heart-to-heart talk with the broker and/or client about the fact that they won't be in compliance and there's no practical way to be in compliance under the present system. I think in some cases we'll move them to a platform, and in some cases they'll do nothing.

I think this falls under the "there's something wrong with every plan if you look hard enough" umbrella; they're just making the umbrella even bigger. (Not that it's ok to not deposit SH contributions; this would be just one more stick to beat someone up if they chose.) As you note, this arose from a multi-employer situation. I think it's one of those things that isn't quite settled because in many situations, the trustee has no way of knowing about delinquent contributions. I think you deal with getting the money in and put the PT issue at the bottom of the worry list.

mmm, I'm not entirely confident in this but mightn't the "reasonably equivalent" basis be tested on accounts that they "could" have, kinda like deferrals in a 410(b) test counting as long as they could be made? Having said that; I would try to avoid it myself. We limit loans to deferrals and rollovers all the time (i.e. "not employer money") and (I think that's ok) it might accomplish pretty much whatever they are trying to do.

I meant "I would definitely report that person as paid now." (i.e. "I would reverse" in your parlance.)

So the participant you are talking about is the one who was paid in 2001 and was not reported? I would definitely report that person now.

When you say "reverse" I assume you mean "report as no longer being entitled to benefits"? For the owner, I would say no, and report him or her only when applicable. for the other person, I would do your client and yourself a favor and report him or her. Otherwise SS is going to tell that person they might have benefits coming (maybe 10, 15...or 30 years down the road) and you can avoid the consequences of that reporting (participant hears "I do have more benefits coming") if possible.

While I don't care for any kind of insurance in plans, I don't think term is any worse than whole life. Of course term hardly ever pays off, that's why it's so cheap! It's not supposed to be an investment, it's a different kind of benefit that is allowed by law. I'm pretty sure that the next time action is taken against a fiduciary for just allowing insurance in a plan will be the first.

If there are no employees after "x" date then you can let the old plan run to the end of the year. I mean, it's not like the rule about (not) terminating a SIMPLE IRA can force a company to stay in business! (There might even be an exception for when a company ceases to exist but it's not worth the effort to try to find it.)

If it's not in the loan documentation, and it might not be, then use your best judgment. My own best judgment is to estimate the interest, so if it's a month after the payment, use 1/12 of the annual rate times the outstanding principal after the last payment. (It raises an interesting, if trivial question, because (I think) most amortization schedules are based on compounding on the payment frequency, yet effectively, the daily val recordkeepers are compounding daily. Is that a problem? Not really, because at the end of the term, they'll generally just wipe out any remaining "balance" on their books if all payments are made. Yet if I recall correctly, they only update the interest when a payment is made, so if someone is way late and in default, the "balance" on the default date is understated, unless we tell them to override. But I don't think anyone is checking this too carefully!)

I think it's common, and ok, to allocate the money, but probably on a pro rata (to assets) basis, since that's how it was probably collected (i.e. not per capita).

I think you'll need to sign a new adoption agreement; the name and tax ID are certainly different and it's not like you would want to bother crafting a lengthy amendment changing the employer when that's about all that is on the adoption agreement anyway. Then talk to the financial institution about how to link the old accounts to the new "plan." Keep in mind that the SIMPLE IRA plan is just a vehicle to get money into the SIMPLE IRA accounts. I'd lean on the financial institution for help on this.

Our language is something to the effect of "the plan elects to use the nonelective safe harbor option in Section xyz for the 2011 Plan Year." I don't know anything about Corbel prototypes but it really should be as simple as that.

This is not totally responsive to your question, but I think these performance reviews are 99% nonsense. They always start by looking at past performance, and what's the first thing you see when you start looking at mutual funds: "past performance is not an indication of future results." That goes both ways; prior good performance is no guarantee of future good performance and prior bad performance is no guarantee of future bad performance. Now if you're talking about dropping a fund due to high expenses or something going on with the management team, then that's a bit of a different story, but I've seen enough of these reviews to know they're pretty much looking at performance. To your question, I wouldn't remove a fund entirely unless there were restrictions on the number of funds allowed and keeping it frozen prevented me from adding the one I wanted. Think about it - if you force someone into a fund not of their own choosing, and then it goes down or otherwise performs worse than the one of their original choosing, they've suffered a loss due to your actions. Whether that is actionable or not I don't know but it certainly sounds bad. (non-lawyer perspective)

It'll be very difficult to give any kind of specific advice because it depends on precise language in one or more documents, and ultimately knowing where the money, if any, is. You say you have a QDRO, which implies that there was to be some split of pension proceeds. Do you know what it says? I would think that's the first place to look for an answer. FYI just because Social Security says there might be money out there doesn't mean that much. They suck a lot of info into their system about benefits that have been earned but don't necessarily get the "not any more" message if the benefit is paid out. You're right to look into it but there are probably more reasons why there's nothing there than there are that something is there.

As I see it... As well it shouldn't! If you can't get spousal consent, then the plan must buy an annuity that pays the participant a lifetime benefit and the (to-be-ex) spouse whatever the appropriate fraction is at the participant's death. That may not be what either of them want for lots of reasons, so if they don't want that to happen, then they must agree to let the participant do a rollover to an IRA and at the same time agree to split the IRA later (assuming there's not enough time to split the account before the termination is completed). I don't think it should be that complicated but I'm sure there will be lots of panic and fee-charging by both attorneys. I'm pretty sure that the plan termination wants to happen way before the settlement is finalized

Mmm, I prefer to focus on the last sentence "They added that the document could take an approach where it identified a date as of which the classification as a day shift or night shift employee is determined (e.g., first day of the plan year, last day of the plan year), and then compute the contribution for all hours for that plan year based on that classification, regardless of the individual's classification for each hour within the plan year" I'd be inclined to think that status on the last day, typically the valuation date, would determine the group, unless something else specifically override that.

Are you saying that if an investment company-prepared form goes through the sponsor's hands it needs the additional disclosure?

I can only repeat/restate what I said - I can see no reason not to make a contribution as of a date on or before the plan termination date. If you think you can't then I would ask when it is ok? - I guess the implication is no contributions in the year of termination? Why not? Back when we used to submit for FDLs upon termination, there would often be contributions made for the year of termination and it was never questioned.

I think it's absolutely ok to make a contribution "as of" a date on or prior to the termination date (and with Buyer and Target's agreement the termination could be undone and re-done for a later date if necessary). Later deposit of monies is no problem.