E as in ERISA

The audit and the Form 5500 are PLAN level reporting. But as noted above, there might be some additional reporting if the assets are actually in the same trust.

What does the plan say? It should prescribe the "deemed cash out" rules. And then should provide for an immediate "repayment" and restoration upon the employee's return to employment without a five year break in service.

I think that the signer gets to decide, not the preparer.

If the plan says "actual" hours, isn't that an operational error to not track actual hours and to use "billable" hours instead? How do they justify that. Shouldn't they consider amending the plan to use equivalencies? I wonder whether this is an isolated case or whether there may be a lot of professional service firms doing this? I'm not familiar with this sector.

The plan is a non-standardized prototype. In the adoption agreement, the box is checked for "1 year of eligibility service" for the various types of contributions. They have filled in "1000" for hours of service for eligibility. The definition of hours in the prototype is "each hour for which an Employee is paid ... for the performance of duties" and "during which no duties are performed." It says that can be changed in the adoption agreement. In the adoption agreement, they've checked "actual hours ..." (There are options for "days worked" ... weeks, semi-monthly and monthly equivalencies but those aren't checked.) HR says that they use billable hours to determine eligibility. There are part time employees.

I'm reacting to the "if you must" comment and wondering if many plans are on the "actual hours" method and just treat billable hours as satisfying that method. But, if so, I'm wondering if there is any actual authority for doing so, or whether that was just the practice when most working in professional services were full time and has not been updated to reflect a lot more flexible hours arrangements.

How do you count hours for eligibility for a plan for a professional who only records billable hours (e.g., an attorney in a law firm)? Actual hours worked are generally more than billable hours. But certain types of professional services firms generally do not even collect information on the non-billable hours. And although the billable hours might be said to be what the employee is paid for, the employee's pay is not so directly tied to hours that it would be adjusted up or down specifically for differences between actual billable hours and the required ones. Are equivalencies generally used? Or do you just use the elapsed time method?

Why wouldn't a requirement of five years of service be considered an SRF under 83? Or 409A? See Section © of regulations http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/10...26cfr1.83-3.htm And examples indicate that requirement to remain in employment for a period of time is a risk of forfeiture.

RSSR! (roulant sur le sol rigolant!)

En outre, considerer l'implication de 409A.

C'est vrai.

Is your company multistate? What product or service do you sell? Maybe its because many certifications and licenses are state specific. Attorney or Cpa or insurance or securities? And they don't want those on cards if they don't relate to the state in which the person is now located. So if they don't allow those, then they don't allow other professional "designations."

Remember that in an IRS audit the plan is not likely to get disqualified unless the problems are egregious or not corrected according to the IRS' satisfaction. So the audit is really a negotiation between the employer and IRS regarding the corrections and a penalty paid by the company. Everything else is just a formality.

Tell it to the IRS. It insisted the insurance company sign the consent to the extension.

If HR 2830 passes in the next couple of weeks this may no longer be an issue.