BG5150

Unless it is a Safe Harbor Match (SHM) calculated per pay period. In that case, they must be deposited no later than the end of the calendar quarter after which the corespondinding deferrals were withheld. For example, the SHM (that's calculated on a per-pay basis) on any and all deferrals withheld from April 1 to June 30 must be deposited no later than Sep 30.

Small plan. 2 owners and 2 other ee's. Biggest annual deferral (besides owners) was ~$1,500 ($60/pay). I am fixing '19 & 20 and leaving it up to him to decide if he wants to fix prior years. We did the years past, but we never before received a schedule of deposits, and the client always answered 'no' to the late deposit question.

Year after year client answers 'no' tot he question 'were and deferrals deposited late.' The accounts are brokerage accounts for which we only get the 12/31 statements with the YTD figures. Often this is good enough to cobble together my 5500's. (side note, this is my first year servicing this client) They switch investment houses in 2019 so I needed some help from the client to reconcile the deposits. I got a list of all the remittances to the trust accounts by date and type. Turns out, they were transmitting funds once a month, but the employees get paid every other week. We are, of course going to calculate lost earnings for 2019 and 2020 and try to right the ship going forward. I'm pretty sure that this has been going on for a while. How far back would you go looking to correct this stuff?

Even better to correct prospectively!

I believe that the partner could take a deduction on the pension cost to his staff, but he is unable to get an allocation and a corresponding deduction.

That's a question for his accountant

Couple years now. Right around when FIS bought them. Just call to submit an incident and you probably will get someone right away, unless they are all busy.

Did you call them? Relius has "instant" service now. You can often talk to someone right away.

Plan was effective 1/1/16. What about retroactively amending to conform to the way the plan was being run and coincidental to the ERs original intent?

Did you ask Relius?

And check the plan doc. It'll tell you if the plan should have daily valued accounts.

That's only if all the plan assets are with that carrier, or in other daily valued accounts. We have several plans that have their 401(k)/match funds in daily valued accounts, but the profit sharing account is in a pooled environment.

Statute of limitations starts the day you file the Form. That's the way I've always understood it.

Plan Doc says participants will have investment direction over their accounts, but all the money is pooled into one account. I think the easiest fix is to retroactively amend the plan to say it's pooled an move one. (The population is owner, spouse and one low-paid employee who only gets a small SH & PS each year). Can they do that? SCP even though that's not explicitly one of the reasons to have a retroactive amendment under EPCRS?

At one point, the DOL said that if 25 people held the same asset in their brokerage accounts, it would be considered a DIA. However, they backed off that.

In the Q&A on the Disclosure rules back in 2012, the DOL said that if a plan had only a brokerage window and no DIAs to avoid the fee disclosure rules, the the trustees may not be living up to their fiduciary responsibilities. (Q 39) https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/employers-and-advisers/guidance/field-assistance-bulletins/2012-02r Is there anything else that talks about NOT having any DIAs in the plan and why that's a bad idea? I seem to remember something like "having too many investments is as bad as having too few" but I cannot locate anything. Especially about the prudence (or lac thereof) of the former.

Peter, doesn't the Plan Administrator still have the responsibility to protect the participant from unreasonable fees? What if the "adviser" is charging 250 basis points for his or her "advice" whereas the other participants aren't charged anything by the plan's adviser? How can the PA determine if the 250 bps are worthwhile?

In many plans. the forfeiture account can be used to pay qualified and reasonable plan expenses, and/or offset an Employer's contribution and/or be reallocated on top of the ER contrib. The Employer will choose among the options. I've only ever seen a handful of plans that don't allow for the fees to be paid from the forfeiture account.

I've never seen that done. But I would have to guess the Plan Administrator would have to have some sort of rubric to determine if the fees are reasonable. I don't think the participant can deem what's reasonable, because it's not really the participant's account; it's the trust's account. I don't think the r/k or the TPA can require the adviser to sign anything. It would be an agreement with the Plan Administrator/trustee and the adviser. Maybe the r/k and or TPA would have an agreement with the sponsor to request the fees get paid out of the accounts.

It is up to the trustees to determine what asset(s) hold(s) the forfeiture funds. Is the company using ALL the forfeiture money every year? Keep in mind, that assets that are capable of generating large gains, probably have the specter of losses, too. What would your feeling be if the forf account LOST $3,500?

Some of the places I've been, there were different tiles to manage compensation in the HR software. Other places it was to assuage egos. "Hey, Jim, you're doing a great job. Here's a 1.5% raise, but we are also making you a SENIOR Account Consultant!" I some places it stemmed from a combination of experience and responsibilities. Early on, I became a Sr. Acct Executive with around 4-5 years of experience when there were others with 10 or 12. It's because I knew more and wanted to know more. Some people just go in and do their job; if something is above their head, they ask their supervisor instead of learning it themselves. I wanted to know the WHY not just the HOW. I have been on the flip side, too, where people who had less experience (years-wise) were my supervisor. It all depends on the size of the department, ranges of experience (and not all experience is the same!), egos, and necessity. I would certainly say if someone has a lot more responsibility than a co-worker, then that person gets a different title.

Sorry, Snicker. I don't do much business down that way. This is true. You'll want an attorney who knows a lot about governmental plans. (Although, I would think the QDRO rules are similar to ERISA-covered plans.)

You should talk to someone in your Compliance area. Some companies value ASPPA credentials, some not so much and rely on in-house training. Your best best is to talk tot he manager over there to see what he or she thinks.

You need to talk to an attorney well-versed in ERISA matters.

Participant(s)?