BG5150

I believe they do.

The 3(16)s responsibilities go as far as the agreement with the plan sponsor goes. I would certainly add some sort of "garbage in, garbage out" provision in any agreement, distancing myself (as 3(16)) from bad data. 3(16)s can also limit the administrative burden on the employer. We have a lot of 20-100 person companies as clients. many times, the owner wears the plan administrator hat. Does she want to have to come in to work and worry about shuttling loan paperwork between the TPA and participant or poring over a QDRO? Let the owner run her company. Plan administration is my bailiwick, not hers.

How many of your "plan administrators" really go through the numbers you put on the 5500. How many clients are doing annual vendor reasonableness reviews? How many are truly reviewing the reports you send for accuracy? How many are really preparing and delivering the disclosure notices properly? How many clients want to spend money on attorneys when that one disgruntled employee decides to sue every Tom, Dick & Harrry out there when he gets fired, including the plan?

Why is that?

Why Kevin? Isn't it just the cost of administering the plan, this time with a new RK? Whether the cost is reasonable is another debate. OP: What difference does it make who the TPA is for reliance on an opinion letter? (I can understand that the prior TPA/vendor wouldn't support the current document any more, but I don't see how an opinion letter status is jeopardized.)

Some sort of agreement for buying a house. Nothing specific. A side note tot he discussion.

I think you would have to take it on a case-by-case basis. Would John Hancock or American funds transfer the assets in that way?

I was on a webcast wherein the presenter was talking about a plan that got audited (investigated) and got into trouble for allowing home loans (5+ years) without proper backup.

How about this then: Annual Administration: $1,000 Plan Documents & Amendments: (Included in Annual Administration) Just curious: where does it say you can't do stuff for "free"?

Would this work? If the TPA is performing other services, bundle the "legal fees" in one of the other services. So, instead of: Compliance Testing: $1,000 Legal Fees: $150/hr You have: Compliance Testing & Legal Fees: $1,000

Residency is some like 31 days. The IRS website has some pages that help distinguish between Non-resident and resident aliens.

Your coverage test is the same either way, no?

We use Datair, and there doesn't seem to be ANY error check across item 6 and the number of entries in Part III. I have 1 D and 2 A's and entered 12 on 6a. No error. Ticket sent to Datair.

The 2013 instructions for line 7 still say :

If a plan doesn't have coda in place, you can add it at any time during the year. In the same circumstances and you want to add safe harbor, the SH must be in place for at least 3 months.

So it looks like we are NOT supposed to put the D's into the count for question 6. Didn't we used to? Was it ambiguous? The instructions say: Do not include any participants on line 6a or 6b who were previously reported on a Form 8955-SSA or a Schedule SSA (Form 5500). Accordingly, only those participants who are listed with an Entry Code A on page 2 should be included on line 6a or 6b. Seem clear, right? I hate Late Fridays. My mind goes to mush.

This is no different than if the people were not in auto-enroll. Missed is missed. At least it's only a couple months, right? Was this the first entry date this happened?

Can the Plan Sponsor name a position with the Employer as a Trustee, instead of specifically naming someone? For example: The Trustees shall be the President and CFO. Secondly, does the Trustee have to agree, in writing, to be a Trustee? I see a lot of plans where the husband owner is Trustee, and that his wife is also names as a Trustee. What if she doesn't even know that she is Trustee and something happens?

I would not net them together. You cannot pre-deposit deferrals. Why was the duplicate deposit still in there? The funds should have been moved tot he suspense account and used to offset the check/wire of the next payroll.

Without a doubt. We put a caveat in our year end letters saying we can only vouch for the reasonableness, not the accuracy, of the match in such cases.

I don't see why not. Don't forget, the SHM must then be deposited no later than the end of the following quarter.

But, what if it's a partial distribution, and there is money left in the account after the requested funds are liquidated? Could the o/n fee be taken from the remaining assets? Using my line of thinking above, probably not. What do the carriers do? I'm not sure.

masteff-- re-reading the thread, I think you are right. A delivery fee is probably optional where a processing fee is not. I was thinking of the processing fee. I think the delivery fee is taxable. My thought process. Account balance 20500 Distribution request comes in 50 processing fee taken (participant has no choice) Balance remaining 2000.00 Participant want the 2000 paid directly. Taxable amount 2000, w/h 400, net distribution 1600 But wait, participant wants the check overnited. OK. Carrier takes 20 for the overnite fee. Participant gets 1580

Based on the OP, it's not the match that's supposed to be the Safe Harbor. So, you can't impose a last day rule on a non-Safe Harbor match if you are providing the 3% nonelective to everyone?

My thought on why the "fee" should not be part of the distribution, nor part of the 1099-R: This is money that the participant cannot take constructive receipt of; they will never have access to it. It will never be their money. So why tax it?