BG5150

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)?

I would say so. From the Datair BPD: Nothing in there talks about distribution amount. Only account balances. Furthermore and conversely, the automatic rollover rules only mention distribution amount, not account balance: So, to me you don't get to rollovers until you satisfy cash-out threshold.

I'm "snickering" at the term "broad."

Potential disadvantage: You are bound to get conflicting information between the two forms (I want 10%/no withholding, I want my full account/$4,500, eg). Potential disadvantage: Even though you have a captive audience, the participants may get annoyed at having to fill out two forms. Potential disadvantage: Possible delay in processing due to needing to different forms in good order. Potential disadvantage: Storage of both sets of forms, and trying to keep them togther.

I don't see it as contradictory at all. 1. Read the document to get the cashout threshold. It will probably be $1,000 or $5,000. Is the vested account balance over that? (Don't forget to check to see if a rollover account is part of that balance!) If yes, proceed with the distribution process. Send your letters, make your phone calls, do your internet searches. 2. When the paperwork comes back, or you realize you have a missing participant AND the vested account balance is less than the threshold, do the distribution. If the gross distribution is over $1,000 you need to roll it over to an IRA. If it is under $1,000 you can a) send the participant a check if you know where they are or b) send it to an IRA if you cannot locate them.

In our document, the automatic distribution is based on the vested account balance at the time of the distribution. It is the value of the payout that determines if the money goes to an IRA. So, if the VAB (in some of the adoption agreements) is over $1,000 you cannot initiate the washout even if the resulting distribution is under $1,000. In the case of the OP, if the AA allows for auto-distribs at $5,000 I think it's okay. I doesn't matter if the plan doc allows for auto-rollovers, the adoption agreement must allow for it, too.

CB are you saying to just send a check? I don't think you can. Rules are the vested account balance has to be less than $1,000. It's not. The rules don't say vested account balance net of fees... Vlad, do you know if these people have received paperwork (or instructions on how to begin the distribution online) in order to get their money and an admonishment that they will get a check if no election is made? If not, I suggest you just send the amount to an IRA, b/c chances are the check will come back as undeliverable.

Thanks, RGB!

Plan has had an investment in gold coins for several years. These are not qualifying investments, I don't think. So, all along they should have been filing a "regular" 5500 with a Schedule I attached. All along, the bond was for mare than the value of the gold. Any harm or foul here? Maybe next year file the I? Did we really commit perjury by saying all the assets were qualifying in the past 5500's?

Turns out, company is not out of business. They just terminated the plan. But they lack the funds to pay the SH.

Company went out of business, terminated its plan and all assets are liquidated. Problem is, the 2019 3% SH was never deposited. What do they do if the owner cannot afford the $32,000 3% Safe Harbor?