hr for me

I have to ask a (maybe not so obvious) question. And maybe I am not understanding what you are wanting to do even if permissible, is it wise? How the heck is payroll going to setup so many deduction codes based on which vendor the participant has requested? That's a multiple for each vendor allowed. I can't imagine multiple data feeds going in and out to a bunch of different vendors for the same purpose ( single retirement plan)....What if the participant wants to change vendors to access a different provision, can they? Or can a participant direct some funds to one vendor and other funds to another vendor? Or are you going to have some specific way to limit some employees to one vendor and others to a different one? Wouldn't you have to be careful about BRFs? Honestly I would pass this by the payroll/programming department (either inhouse or your third party payroll provider) to see what the cost is going to be for (1) setup and (2) ongoing. I would study the WHY there is a need for more than one vendor....

Having been on the tech side of CC payment processing and ACH EFT processing for another hat I wear at our company, it's not that simple for a 401k recordkeeper plan to just decide to take EFTs or CC payments. While it seems "simple" to those who have not researched the circus of these types of payments (vs bulk payments from payroll), it truly isn't. It requires a whole new set of laws to comply with (PCI compliance etc). Those fees can add up to 4% of the payment that has to be charged to someone each payment. Are you suggesting that the plan sponsor would charge that fee on top of the loan payment/interest? And then someone has to reconcile the (daily) incoming payments (one at a time outside of the bulk payroll feed), make sure it is credited to the right person. Honestly I do this now for a group of 900 customers for one business and 500 at another. We get daily transactions along with twice a month autobilling AND get chargebacks/declines to deal with. Unless the employer wants to add a pretty much full time position to their 401k/payroll group, I just don't see any of them wanting to dive into your viewpoint of becoming a bank for terminated employees. Amortization schedules in 401k plans were just not set up the same way as a regular bank loan. Plan loans were never meant to replicate loans out in the banking/finance world. It's always been communicated that if you leave employment, you would owe the outstanding balance pretty immediately. One of my first jobs back in the early 90's was for one of the top 3 HR consulting firms in their 401k recordkeeping department -- I had to audit and "fix" loans where payments were out of whack with their amort schedules. I'm sure it's gotten better, but I don't see where the recordkeeper or plan sponsor should get any deeper into the loan business. Sad to me that any participant has to rely on their 401k as their only savings vehicle. Makes me wonder then if the plan shouldn't be checking the credit status if they are to be forced to be a money lender to people who no longer have a direct relationship of payment to the plan from payroll. And many of the large service providers are getting their fees off of terminated vested participants as they roll their funds into IRAs at that service provider. But I am old-fashioned and never thought 401k loans were a good idea in the first place....

I'd ask what the plans were expecting? what was communicated at the time of setup? I do agree with Bird that I would tend to go with the per participant fee and then pro-rate any base fee based on balances overall. But can your system do both?

agree that it will be in the plan document/SPD or loan procedures. I agree with MoJo that it is NOT a good business practice to allow especially if the former employee could distribute their account.

Do you mean the non-profit hours are considered "light duty" with the employer and being paid through payroll? That is different than "no duties" and WC wages that the insurance company is paying that CuseFan states. Light duty is given by the employer in a WC situation for different duties, but still "required work" by the employer to get wages paid directly by the employer through payroll after the doctor releases the employee to do some type of work but not their regular duties - rather than wages through the WC policy. Many employers do this to (1) bring the employee back to work sooner and (2) to lower the total WC claim and still get some work out of the injured employee. So my question would be -- who is paying the wages and how?

Thanks for all you do!!!!

they'd be smarter to address the turnover issues in another way. While turnover affects the 401k plan, it affects a lot of other things in the business also (agree with TPAJake that the sponsor is the root of the problem, not the elig requirements)....They are just trying to cover a symptom rather than diagnose the underlying problem (whack a mole anyone?)... heck I can give a good guess just on what you have already written!

HRA can reimburse for retirees-- I actually researched it based on your other post just to clarify it against what I know about the MSP rules, but didn't comment. It's for current employees (non-retired) through a 125 that it might be an issue with MSP. That's your twist question... I agree the answer there is no due to the MSP rules. I am going to link an explanation that I found that might help you out: http://megrobenefits.com/2015/03/19/irs-provides-details-on-reimbursing-premiums-for-individual-health-coverage-or-medicare-part-b-part-d-or-medigap-for-active-employees-conshohocken-benefit-broker/

Are you sure the plan coverage under LTD would cover someone out on a WC claim? Generally the employee can't double dip. Most insurance providers exclude coverage for injuries and illnesses that are covered by Workers’ Compensation Insurance...so I would check with your LTD policy before telling the employee they could be eligible. If by some chance you mean CA Disability (if CaliBen means CA), here is what they say "You can file a DI claim, but usually you cannot be paid both workers’ compensation and DI benefits for the same period of time except in limited situations. For example, we may pay interim benefits if your employer or your employer’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier denies or delays payment, or we may also pay the difference in rates if your workers’ compensation benefits are less than your DI benefits. If SDI does pay you benefits while your workers’ compensation case is pending, we will file a lien to recover those benefits when you resolve your workers’ compensation case."

agree with Kevin C that a lot is going to depend on the actual data transfer and the prior recordkeeper. If the client has a good relationship and is paying the prior recordkeeper to work on it before the transition, sending test files, etc the time period will go a lot faster. If the client has a bad relationship and is not even trying to get the information out in a timely manner since they know they have already lost the client, it can take longer. If the time period is less than what was communicated (which should have been based on reasonable statistics/expectations from both the prior and new recordkeepers), that's just expectations that the client needs to manage with their employees. What is happening with other clients and other plans can be like comparing fruits --different investment choices, setups issues, etc. And my personal estimate of reasonability would be 7-14 days.

I have to wonder if you are close enough to know these details, do you know who the auditors are and is there anyway to anonymously disclose it to them? If you are an employee of that firm, I would definitely be looking for another job!

your best bet would be to try to establish a relationship with a current TPA because what you are asking is not a small question or easy answer. Try to find one to partner with or takeover because they will have that knowledge and be able to share it with you. Trying it go it on your own is going to be tough. Many TPAs started out working a different path (HR consulting firms, the big daily 401k houses, etc) and have gotten experience way before ever starting a TPA firm. It truly isn't just expanding into a new niche. and being snarky with a long time poster isn't going to get you much from other long time posters.

Back in the day of our first home, we borrowed $10k from my FIL to make the down payment until the hardship withdrawal could be processed (think quarterly balance forward processing NOT daily mutual funds). We needed the funds , they just weren't getting to us in time to make the contract/closing happen. But it was still an immediate and heavy need since it was a balloon-payment loan.

Going to brainstorm a bit.... (1) it's not a grandfathered plan since they switched providers (and would have had to keep close to the same % benefits and carrier, etc since 2010 to be grandfathered) -- so they have to fall under all the PPACA provisions, of which one is covering preexisting conditions and the list of minimum essential benefit, so you are correct there. (2) Have you asked HR/employer the purpose of the questionnaire? Is it for 'wellness' reasons to help the employer/insurance company/EAP/Wellness group to help you with the issues? eta: just clicked on your attachment and at the top it states WELLNESS. Wellness plans are fully legal and employers are allowed to ask these types of questions but do have to be careful what is asked and how -- so as to not discriminate under ADA, GINA or other laws. (3) Often the insurance company will have employees fill out new enrollment questionnaires at time of enrollment, or when the employer switches carriers. (BCBSTX didn't used to require it but UHC did, not sure if they do now since we have stayed grandfathered under BCBSTX since 2010*) Some are known for more invasiveness than others. Usually they are trying to figure out possible actual claim rates (even if the employer is rated by age/area/smoking only) and exposures. They may be trying to get more information on the types of medications, etc since they will have their own formulary. Or just to get a background of current/pre-existing issues so that it is on file at your time of need (which could be an emergency with no time to spare) They can't deny coverage, but it is my understanding that they can require you to fill it out to be covered and might refuse to cover something you do not disclose (you need to read any small print on the form). Do your best, don't lie and possibly include a statement on the questionnaire that due to all your daughter's issues, you have answered to the best of your ability in the short time frame that you had. Offer to give a more complete analysis if more time is given. If it is a small employer with 2-50 employees, you might check out this website: http://www.tdi.texas.gov/pubs/consumer/cb040.html *I did find a current Aetna enrollment questionnaire for TX employees and yes, it did have the medical questionnaire that I referenced in #3.

I do think it is relevant -- years ago I pulled 3 companies out of the PEO relationship and had these issues in reverse -- two were non-calendar year moves, one was at the end of the calendar year. I realize that it might not be legally required, but is it something the PEO is willing to calculate based on numbers that are not theirs? I haven't seen a payroll/benefits provider that is too willing to do so because they usually don't want to accept any responsibility for what happened prior to their takeover. And also there is the thought that they then have to get that 1/2 year SH contribution out of the employer rather than it already being in the plan.

Is the PEO taking over the responsibility for 2017 W-2s, etc such that they will have full access to year to date information (compensation, deferrals, etc) from the first half the year? I know many mid-year issues with payroll and benefits come up and sometimes the new provider takes on the full year responsibility and other times they do not. So if you haven't already,you might need to check the contract between the client and the PEO to see who is claiming responsibility for the 1st 1/2 of the year. eta: or was the PEO already doing payroll calculations for the whole year and just merging the 401k later than the actual move to the PEO?

I've seen it done for STD for short periods of time.....but the others are correct that when you get into long time periods of payments, it can be a much larger issue.

What are your break in service/plan vesting rules in the plan? If it says nothing, I would lean towards your case that she is immediately vested -- unless she is an HCE and if so, then you have to be even more careful. Side question - does your admin/recordkeeping system even allow for two different vested %s on employer moneys? If she still has old employer money, how are you going to separate that from new employer contributions? Or would you have to setup a whole new money type? Might be easier to amend the plan if it is silent on rehire vesting than to set that up for a few participants.

agreed that it would be 2016 -- since the pay date is 16. An accrual would be more like pay period 12/10-12/24 paid on 12/26 and processed on 12/28 at the recordkeeper and deposited on 1/2 due to holidays/weekends, etc. Something that is in the 2015 year on paycheck date but the deposit doesn't hit the bank until the next year. When we did quarterlies, there were accruals pretty much every quarter and they tended to roll one payroll from prior quarter in and one payroll from current quarter not yet in the trust. Yours was paid in 2016 and deposited in 2016. I don't see where it would ever be a 2015 accrual just because some or all of the pay period itself is in 2015....it goes by paydate.

There is a way to waive participation, but it is my understanding that it is a waiver that can never be revoked as it is a lifetime waiver. I am finding that they are then not counted as eligible. And it can totally depend on what is in the plan document....here's a link to some different clauses that I have found: https://www.lawinsider.com/clause/waiver-of-participation And one actually has it as being available 30 prior to the start of the Plan Year rather than before ever eligile. But what I am finding might be a bit old and very case specific -- But I do agree it would need to be done before the start of the Plan Year in which he is getting the contributions.

what's funny is that I know exactly who posted that (although it is not me). I hang out on that board too since my position crosses over payroll and benefits and we often refer benefits questions here (it's more of a payroll related board and many payroll people have little to no "hitting" in the benefits area *Ü*) If anyone ever wants to meet some payroll heavy hitters, let me know and I will point you there!

Do you have any idea when the original aftertax money was deposited/contributed? (I am thinking of Pre87, Post 86 taxable rules).....If the 401k has no after-tax bucket and basis tracking and doesn't want to set it up due to costs or can't, I would say the amount would need to be returned. The question I see is whether any prior earnings attributable to the aftertax amounts would need to be distributed also. So I don't see it just as current earnings since the rollover but rather all earnings on the aftertax amounts. after 1986, the IRS decided it wanted to get some taxes on some aftertax earnings rather than letting 100% of them sit in the participant's account. So you might consider that viewpoint.

who's on the "plan committee"? HCEs who are deciding whether they give themselves a contribution? Or peers with HCEs are telling the committee what they personally would choose? Or subordinates to HCEs who could be influenced? Is the plan committee truly arm's length away when deciding which HCEs get the contribution? As for age, as long as there isn't disparate impact (say you chose the lowest comps and those are all or mostly youngest, that would still be age discrimination just indirectly). Because changing the group of NHCEs can still get discriminatory if you aren't very very careful. But honestly I think is too aggressive and wouldn't suggest it. Just too many places for this to go wrong.

I have to agree that it sounds more like HR/Payroll outsourcing (and it being done much better than those in a company that have no HR/Payroll background) than 3(16) services... When I worked for one of the top three HR consulting firms many moons ago, we did much of what you listed...

I would not expect the outside administrator to be able to do the w-2 withholding calculations without being provided at the very least the w-4 and the year to date FICA withholding amounts (in case the limit has already been reached). To me, this is 100% a payroll function and my experience matches that of EBECatty. I would not expect the administrator to do either a 1099 or a W-2. I don't see how this would be a good process to outsource at all, nor do I know of any companies that do so (especially since the administrator is giving you bad advice on how they could do it if you force them to do so)