Below Ground

I'm with Bart.

Did it work?

Key Lime: BG5150's comment is very important. A TPA is not paid to be an "off-site storage" for a client who fails to keep good records. It is not the TPA's responsibility to keep records for the Plan Sponsor -- the Plan Sponsor has an obligation to do so. When a client leaves us we send them a letter suggesting that they review file and determine if they would like copies at no charge from our files. We do require them to detail what they want since the lazy person (who probably kept no records, or at least not organized in any fashion) will just say he/she want a copy of everything. For 90 days we will honor any such request. Thereafter, a fee will apply to reflect that files have been moved to storage. I note that our files are stated to be our property in writing, so there is no confusion there. Bird also makes a great comment. If you want a prior TPA's courtesy, be sure to be courteous. Earlier this year I had one of those calls where the new service wanted specific filtering of data, in a special format. They wanted us to do this to make the transfer to their systems no effort for them. It is interesting that the client later told us that they were charging a huge fee for "setup services". I note that the client came back to us once they found out that we could work with the change of investment product, and experienced the "beauty" of that other service. I always try to be courteous to a new service representative, since one never knows when the "shoe will be on the other foot". I am sad to say that on occassion, the new TPA will be arrogant and down right nasty. They need to keep in mind that I'm doing them a favor! I don't have to provide anything, and yes I do have that in writing under the Sponsor's siganture. Lastly, I always assume that I must get all past records from the Plan Sponsor when we get a new client. Neither you or I have any right to expect something from a prior TPA. If we do get something, that is a true bonus.

GMK - I for one am not perfect in any sense. I suggest that negative reactions may stem from a less than positive experience with their customer service, or lack thereof. At least that is mine. I do, however, think that it is clear that the discount is not available to the "non-HDC". Afterall, the email "may have been accidentally received". My sense was not that we are making a discount available to you; but instead, disregard that discount because you are not eligible. I do agree that each customer should be fair about "this". No one (or service) is perfect 100% of the time. In my case, my decision will reflect how I believe the product and service has served me. There was a period where Relius had worked well for me. Also, I do think they make a very good software. Decisions, decisions.

GMK - Look closely at Andy's post. The offer only applies to "clients who cancelled their software before 1/1/2008". If you stayed with them since that date you don't qualify for a discount. You need to leave them to get a discount. I suggest that the person who thought up the 2nd email should get a bonus! What a wonderful message to send to clients! Pure genius! I can only say that I was previously on the fence about renewing. I like the software but I have found better customer service with another vendor for plan document software. This had me considering making a move, or at least checking out the impact of a move. I was not quite there until I got this note in my email box. As Andy points out, my business does not need to be earned, apparently. Hmmmmm, decision is now made.

Blinky, oh how I would like to do so. Unfortunately, the law now protects the bad guys from my vigilantism. There is a point, sadly, when further effort creates problems for the victim. This type of event is very disruptive to the family. There is a time when you need to turn the focus away from the event so that my wife and kids can stop feeling paranoid, violated, etc... BG, we did all of that and more. We faxed flyers to shops, clubs and pawn shops. We then visited those places. I appreciate all of the well wishes we received, but unless something happens (I see the creep riding my quad), I feel there is nothing more that I can do. The cops have made that VERY clear to me. I will change my signature soon, just not yet. I am still mad that they got away with it. It's my way of saying this really stinks. The "happy ending" is that we are back riding. Again, thanks!

Got a great deal on a leftover 2007 Honda TRX 450 ER SE. I am riding once again!

In one of the many seminars on this topic, my notes say the count is done the same as a 401(k). Sorry, I can't give you more than that, but.... Added Later - There is an exclusion for prior termination that I forgot about. Look at the thread create by SheilaD as done Nov 19 2009, 09:41 AM.

In order.... Normally documents have a section that addresses "Multiple Employer Provisions". Do you mean the Plan has "multiple employer plan" in the name? If so, just change the name. If something else, I need more details. A Multiple Employer Plan (MEP) will have a "primary plan sponsor". The other firms are "adopting employers". It sounds like your client is the "primary". It is analogous to sponsoring a prototype. The analogy does breakdown qucikly, but it might help you visualize this concept. Have "adopters" terminate their participation. Keep in mind that the plan is simply a program that is sponsored by the primary which is adopted for use by the adopters. Ultimately, you could have the primary terminate sponsorship, but that requires steps that I am not sure you need at this point. 333? Sounds like whoever had this before you was trying to apply "logic" like plan number 501 for 125. Anyway, on the next 5500 you do, take action to correct plan number. See 5500 instructions for details. It's not hard. Your conclusions about the Adoption Agreement confirms that this firm is the primary. No comment comes to mind. It already is a "regular 401(k) plan". You just need to clean a few things up. Almost all can be done with the EGTRRA Restatement. Of course, you may have some historical operational defects, but without details, I can't speak toward that. Assuming that there is not serious "botch up" with the past administration, you should be able to fix this without too much problem. Of course, Murphy's Law says...... Hope that helps "Pat".

I suggest that since the match I think you are discussing is a match that can't be allocated, allocation of earnings is not applicable. This is analogous to a match that would cause IRC 415 to be violated. Application of an earnings adjustment is not applicable, as I understand. This is becuase the match allocation should simply not be made. Is your question related to monies that were deposited and need to be remove from an individual's account?

Thanks to you both. We have developed "evidence" that leads to 2 people, who have a history that includes these types of theft. So far, not good enough for the police to do anything, but we are trying. Craigs List, eBay, local shops and a pawn shop have all been visited, and will be visited again. That is a great idea, thanks. If it is who we believe, they will ride, trash, and maybe sell what's left. Time is running out, and I must say, so are our options. At the beginning of this "adventure", we were told that getting the quads back was highly doubtful. This seems to be true.

You can copy under Windows Explorer, which sends to clipboard. Then open a Word document and paste as found under "Edit". Then save as word document.

That is okay Mr. Fish, or is it 3 Eyed, or Blinky. Either way, humor shared is good medicine, in my book. As an update, police don't really do anything with this crime. They tell you to follow leads that you, the victim, uncover. We are doing that. We now have an exact time of the crime, a description of the crooks, and a potential group of suspects. In fact, one group has a history of this crime! We even have 2 "moles" getting more details on 2 groups, and may even solve this! Statistics say doubtful, but I have to try. I may be overly optimistic, but "hope springs eternal...".

I agree with K2. Taking the money back is not an option. As I understanding, exceeding the deductible limit is the only reason that is agreed to be allow a "refund".

No. I don't know how to create a link to an earlier post, but I did a thread on this topic on January 30, 2008. The topic was "Deposit of Employer Contribution". Sorry I can't provide the link, but that is the thread you want.

My post would be identical to WDIK's post. We might also add that we are terminating our service, if this is an on-going problem with that client. (That ties in with Rcline46's post.) We sometimes get new clients that had a "bad" TPA. We also often see where it is a "bad" client. Good luck!

Thank you both for your comments. Homeowners does not cover since they were registered with DMV, which is excluded under the policy (motor vehicles that are registered with DMV?). I was surprised on that, but... We did have insurance on them as the riding parks require that you have at least liability coverage. We have a comprehensive rider that gives us market value. The estimate now is that we will be about $4K - $6K short of replacement, with payment after a 30 day wait. The state troopers opined that if we didn't get them back within a few day, we would most likely not want what was recovered. I think that is right. Still... A neighbor that goes to work real early thinks he say them riding down the road at about 5am. They stalled out one of the quads, and pushed it down the road. He then heard it start up again, and then they were gone. I hope to replace my son's quad after we get the insurance. I don't think I will be able to also replace mine. At least not for awhile. We'll see. The monetary loss is bad enough, but the anger that is building is becoming worse. You find yourself asking "why". Even though I know why, it still seems to make no sense. Again, thanks for your comments. They were much appreciated.

One hobby I have is riding "quads". (My icon is a picture of the quad I had.) My whole family and I go to a riding park whenever possible. Well, last weekend some jerks broke into our "quad garage" and stole my quad, and the quad of my oldest son. That son is currently studying for the armed forces test to become a helicopter pilot for our army, and just got the quad for his HS graduation. While I know that this board is not for reporting crimes, just wanted to vent about how crappy some people can be. Kinda makes one wonder. :angry:

I'm hungry. Pizza or Subway, perhaps?

Thank you both for your replies. Also, I think that contacting the vendor is a perfect suggestion. Again, thanks.

What do they say? Is it an option? Thanks.

GMK - I would say nothing if you were wondering if the money would be used to retire debt. It would just be spent, IMHO.

I suggest that BOTH DB and 401(k) Plans have a time and place. To be fair, you need to recognize the basic differences AND purposes for the programs. 401(k) Plans are not pension plans. They are profit sharing plans (typically) with CODA provisions. They do not provide the security of the DB Plan, and were never intended to do so. They are not the solution for problems being experienced with retirement income, but they are also not the problem. DB Plans are also not the solution. It should not be forgotten that many firms do not use a DB Plan given the inability to bear the funding burden. Is the employee really better off with the DB Plan if it results in the firm not being able to offer employment? Perhaps "worship at the alter" for either the 401(k) or DB Plan is foolish. Instead, we may considering using both whenever possible, allowing for the costs and benefits that both have. Also, is it totally the private employers burden? Does not the person also have some responsibility? Looking at earlier posts I must say that #6 by Belgrath made the most sense to me. If you want a solution, don't ignore any of the tools available. One is NOT better than the other. They serve in different ways. Keep that in mind and you will better serve your clients, in my opinion. As final comments, investment markets go up and they go down. Since, as I understand, there is a historical upward trend, does it make sense to trash the program that is tied to the markets simply because the markets are currently down? Maybe it make sense to transfer all risks and cost to firms that are already struggling to survive? Perhaps we should mandate that companies cover all needs of retirees? Didn't that work for GM? Perhaps workers be better off unemployed, or with no benefits? Just some random thoughts.

Thanks for the link PPro. I tried searching before I posted my question, but did not find that posting. Guess I should look a little harder next time. It sounded like there was no definitive answer in that thread. There were, however, several helpful comments. The postings related to termination distributions are interesting, but not relevant to this situation. The defined term "participant" makes no distinction between active and terminated. However, the posting by Masteff regarding placement in the document, is very relevant. The hardship section is under In-Service Distributions. While I'm not sure this resolves the issue, it does allow a logical decision to be reached. Again, thanks for providing the link. It was a great help!

Person was an active participant under a 401(k) Plan until employment terminated in September. Plan terms require that person can't be paid until after closure of the plan year; meaning, termination distribution can't be paid now. Person just learned that beneficiary diagnosed with terminal illness; meaning, medical bills (and other issues). Plan does allow for Hardships. Can this person get a Hardship Distribution even though no longer employed? Is this question impacted by new standards that allow a beneficiary to obtain a Hardship?