Gadgetfreak

A plan has a match formula in the Document for which they only make once a year after we do the calculation. At the same time we do the match calculation, we run the ACP test using our calculated numbers. In this case, the ACP test fails using the numbers we projected but were not yet made. Does this need to be done in chronological order (i.e. they make the match and then ACP returns/forfeitures)? Or can any steps be saved in the process and, if so, what? We know that to handle the ACP returns, unvested match amounts get forfeited and vested amounts are distributed. Thank you.

I checked the FTW Doc and I don't see any language that discusses either line of reasoning. TAG has stated to me that it is a violation on the Sponsor if they fail to withhold loan payment.

I agree with everyone here that the 50% rule only applies at the time of the loan but I have a related question which is how I ended up on this thread, An active employee/participant has a $47k outstanding loan balance. He is eligible for an in-service withdrawal of $100k. I don't see why that is not allowed. But here is where I am confused. He "wants" to default on his loan. I am not sure participant's (or the Employer for that matter) can choose to simply say "I want to default". My understanding is that there is a payroll agreement at the time of the loan to state that payments will continue as long as there is payroll. But what if he "wants" to? Whose responsibility is it to do the payroll deductions and what are the consequences for failure to do it? The participant is the owner. He is OK with a default (can't do an offset). I want to tell him that the Employer is obligated to continue repayments and it is a "violation" if the Employer doesn't. But what, exactly, is the violation? And, if the participant is willing to be taxed anyway, what "punishment" does he get for stopping payments?

In my experience, a non-producing TPA that also does in-house recordkeeping is probably one of the least likely to have an exclusive alliance with a vendor. Vendors won't send any business their way because they are in competition with them. And, for the cases where they are TPA/admin-only, they rarely control which vendor is used because they are non-producing as the adviser will usually dictate the platform. Yet, if the reputation is built on integrity and excellent service, the clients will come.

I urge you to due some extensive due diligence before deciding on this. I have been testing this on and off for several months and in-depth over the last two weeks. This is still a fairly new product and there are a lot of (in my opinion) obvious features that are missing. FTW is fantastic at listening to their users and getting enhancements done but this is still in its infancy. At the same time, the potential for this product is amazing which means that I continue to question whether to commit to a competitor until I see what FTW does with this in 2014. Perhaps the deficiencies I see are not important to you so you need to test yourself. As a brief example, there is no way to send a message to all the portal users of an existing single client at one time in an easy manner. When you are in the client screen, you can see a list of only those company contacts and select one. But to select the remaining company contacts requires you to look through a list of ALL contacts sorted by name and without even the company name next to it. So basically you need to know who you are looking for before you select. A glaring omission in my opinion and I hope the rectify that soon.

You can also look at Hightail (previously yousendit). You don't have to use a password (though you can) and I imagine that is the same as Dropbox - a complicated URL but it can be accessed by anyone who knows it. You can also recommend to your clients to use a password manager like Lastpass (free for desktop) which will help eliminate the forgotten password issues. Finally, look at your software providers for portal features. I know FTW and Relius have that capability. Also, there are vendors that offer CRM with portals. PensionPro does. Not sure about EBG.

I spoke to Relius yesterday and also, as a new member of RANDUG, posted my questions there too. It seems that, although no one will guarantee it, they are fairly confident posting multiple asset fee transactions and base fe transactions at the same time, should NOT cause negative holdings. I guess we will need to see if that is true.But good idea about the notes and Crystal. The problem is, if you want to use a Fee Schedule to automate the process, it won't put an individual note in each.

Definitely take a look at pensionpro. Their system is phenomenal for CRM and workflow management. You are able to create workflows for anything - including conversions. Full disclaimer: I do NOT use them as I had a custom CRM built for myself just a year before they launched so it wasn't worth it for me. Instead, I am currently looking at project management systems that will help with my conversions. We use Excel now but are looking at Smartsheets. I want to be able to send reminders to the responsible party when we are waiting for documents, etc. I will continue to research.

We use RA for daily recordkeeping and trading. On the first day of each quarter, we need to assess the following fees: 5 bps asset fee for custodian 10 bps asset fee for recordkeeping 15 bps asset fee for Broker $125 flat fee (divided pro-rata) for TPA $2.50 per participant fee for TPA We need to do something similar across all plans and we want the fees to be separated on the last page of the statement for the 404(a)(5) portion. Relius has told us that we cannot post more than one fee simultaneously lest we incur negative holdings. At first they told us that we would need to assess a 30 bps fee in one transaction and call it "Asset Fee" or "Custodial/Recordkeeping/Advisory Fee". That wasn't acceptable and I asked why there can't be three separate asset fees (for disclosure) but Relius would know to bill the 30 bps. They eventually told us that we should be OK if we do the three different asset fees at the same time but I didn't get the impression that they were confident with that. QUESTION 1: Do you think we can assess all three asset fees at the same time without any negative holdings? Then they told us that we "might" be able to also assess the base fee at the same time without negative holdings but, again, I remain skeptical. QUESTION 2: What do you think about the base fee? They told us there is NO way to assess the per-participant fees at the same time and it must be done the following day? QUESTION 3: What are others doing? Doesn't seem peculiar to have a fee on the first business day of the quarter and then a second fee on the next business day? QUESTION 4: Is there any way to enter in payee information for these fees so that it is very easy for us to create a report for each broker telling them how much we will be paying them per plan (and a total)? QUESTION 5: Besides this forum, is there another message board for Relius Admin (esp daily trading) users? Thanks for any help/advice.

Is this forum still being monitored? I have some questions about fee processing on Relius Admin and could use some help from my peers. Thanks.

LLC member made a $17,000 401k deferral on 12/27/12 to TD Ameritrade. Their CPA is telling him today (9/11/13) that he earned NO schedule C income in 2012 and therefore there was no way he could have deferred money into the 401k Plan. Is there any IRS guidance on how to handle this? We are asking Relius about our options and will need to call TD Ameritrade but the CPA is saying that there "must" be IRS guidance on what to do. Thx.

Does this mean that, until the loan is offset, our 5500 assets and loan balance will not match the trust reports from the custodian? That could be years of irregularity. I understand the above reasoning that the 5500 should match the 1099s. So, if a 1099 was issued in 2012 (for example) the 5500 should reflect the deemed distribution then. But the fact that it is staying as a loan balance on the recordkeeping system is going to cause enormous confusion for future years. Does anyone have any advice? Thanks.

Look at http://www.shoretelsky.com/, http://www.broadviewnet.com/, http://www.signalpointcommunications.com/.

You are too nice . I agree that, in the situation you described, it is reasonable to "ask". But as the year gets later and later, I feel more comfortable with doing the match and the ADP test - especially if they do SCP (and no IRS fees).

I agree with your comments. But an SCP (or even a VCP with a mea culpa) correction could be to do the match formula (which is in the SPD so, theoretically participants know about it) but NOT to automatically pass ADP. I think that is reasonable and the "punishment fits the crime".

My understanding is that the Document must say Safe-Harbor Match (SHM) AND a notice must be given prior to 12/1 of the prior year. So this leads to a good question, what if you have the language in the Document but you didn't give the notice? My understanding is that you must still do the SH matching formula but you don't get an automatic pass for ADP. Would anyone like to comment on that?

I have looked at them all. PensionPro seems very promising. However, withany system that is "off the shelf" you are limited to how much customization you can do to meet your specific needs. So, when evaluating, see what system will bend to your needs instead of making you change to its design. Although, in some cases you may find that its design is more efficient than your current process. Each of the three systems you mentioned were designed by TPAs. In addition, look at non-TPA specific systems. A Document Management System (DMS) with workflow capabilities (and a client portal) may be better for you. Since TPA workflows are very document-centric, you may have better luck with a system like that (which typically allows for more customization). For example, as TPAs we get a distribution form or a census from a client and it goes through many stages of a workflow before it is fully "processed". Finally, for a little self-promotion, you may be interested in attending this: http://www.asppa.org/Main-Menu/confswebcasts/webcasts/091813.aspx.

BG5150 is correct. For cross-tested plans, a resolution is needed each year with the allocation by participant. The easiest way I found to do this is to make the resolution more generic and reference an attached schedule (which will be the allocation report).

This is an extremely expensive endeavor for small TPAs. Even small recordkeepers, who I agree need to have "something", will find this a burden. As a recordkeeper, you could provide the SAS70 of the recordkeeping software (ASC, Relius, SRT, etc.) and of the financial custodian which has been accepted by some auditors in the past. In addition, you may want to look into the CEFEX certification program for TPAs and/or recordkeepers in collaboration with ASPPA: http://www.cefex.org/Index.aspx?PageID=28. That has been very helpful for us in providing the confidence that the auditor, etc. need.

My Firm provides added hand-holding when necessary but we really depend upon the client (or the CPA, Adviser, etc.) to be responsive to our communications. For example, if I send instructions on how to electronically file the 5500, we have procedures in place to send a reminder in 30 days, 60 days, etc. As the deadline gets closer, we will call on the phone. But we have some clients that won't return even our voice messages which leads us to send letters stating something like "If you don't follow our instructions or return our calls, we will not be held responsible....". We, for example, do not sign 5500s for our clients. Maybe there are some other TPAs that do. But, if your client is really interested in "doing the right thing", they need to be aware that there are several things per year that require their attention and action. A good TPA will lay that out for them (and remind them periodically). I also wonder if a client like this is careful with depositing deferrals in a timely fashion. I have found that to be the biggest problem as there is a question on the 5500 which specifically asks that. Most of the national recordkeepers don't monitor this or send reminders that a payroll deferral contribution is due. A client like this might benefit from that added service. Some TPAs may monitor this for the client when using the big recordkeepers but I have not seen that very often. Perhaps looking for a small TPA/Recordkeeper that offers that hand-holding may be a good match for this client. Good luck.

But it specifically says "...if the plan is top heavy, all non-key employees must get the top heavy minimum allocation, not just the NHCs...". Wouldn't that include non-key HCEs?

Now this conversation got me confused. Admittedly, I can't think of any plans I currently manage that exclude HCEs from the SH but this is an interesting topic. However, I believed that, to be exempt from TH in a SH Plan, all non-keys must received the SH. After all, if the TH test is looking at keys vs. non-keys, wouldn't one reason that you could not discriminate against ANY non-keys (including HCEs) to satisfy the TH requirements?

We use www.yousendit.com.

I agree with Belgarath.

I do not have an answer for you but appreciate you posting this. I can reasonably say that the work involved in processing a forced IRA rollover is more than a standard distribution. However, reading the above, it seems like I am not allowed to charge a higher fee for this extra work. Can anyone comment?