HarleyBabe

So...are we the only firm disappointed with Relius and Web Client. Does the other providers have the 5500EZ ready yet?

I have several sets of groups. All state 1000 hours to receive an allocation with the exception of a few. The exact situation is that I have 4 partners in a group and all want something different, allocation wise. I therefore was going to amend the groups to place each highly paid participant in their own group, problem solved for 2011. Side note - It is a calendar year plan I was always under the impression if there was a 1000 hour requirement for your group and no one had met the 1000 hours, the groups could be amended up until that point. My colleague is stating that the group can not be amended after the first day of the plan year. If that is the case, can someone point us the direction of where the law states the rules regarding this so we can read the provision. My colleague can't seem to find it and says he's is not really 100% positive either. Thanks

Of course it does. It's a shame that you have to waste your time on this. The trick is to come up with an allocation using the existing groups that is close to what you would get under an integrated formula, which may or may not be possible. The bottom line is that you must use the general test to pass nondiscrimination, since you don't have a safe harbor formula, and you are going to run that test on a contributions, not benefits, basis. Can you further elaborate on your response. I need proof that you just can't do this because to present. Wouldn't non-discrimination automatically pass because they are all receiving the same percent. Sorry, I need ABC explanations. Also, the only employee is young, from what you are saying above, are you saying it will still have to pass average benefits, which it won't and the rate group test. I just need specifics, sorry.

Of course it does. It's a shame that you have to waste your time on this. The trick is to come up with an allocation using the existing groups that is close to what you would get under an integrated formula, which may or may not be possible. The bottom line is that you must use the general test to pass nondiscrimination, since you don't have a safe harbor formula, and you are going to run that test on a contributions, not benefits, basis. Can you further elaborate on your response. I need proof that you just can't do this because to present. Wouldn't non-discrimination automatically pass because they are all receiving the same percent. Sorry, I need ABC explanations.

Does someone have this for DB Plans?

We've had a long running argument in my firm in regards to the following: Have a cross-tested plan, 8 groups, typical plain Jane crosstested. Allocations chosen per group and allocated pro-rata within the group One year, a young person leaves and that totally changes the results of the cross-testing, so some in our office say, just run the allocation integrated, it can be tested on a contribution basis and as long as it passes which of course it would, you're fine. Here's my argument and if someone can give me proof, I'd be forever gratefu or maybe I'm wrongl. Doesn't that integration level have to be in the adoption agreement, so wouldn't we have to have a plan amendment stating that the allocation is now being performed on an integrated basis??

I thought there was something in the past where the client could do a more simplified amendment rather than a full restatement if the plan was already terminated and the participants just haven't taken all the funds yet.

Was there a cut off date for plans who have terminated but the sole participant haan't taken their money as to if we have to amend or not?

I've recently been thrust into the roll of "Must know everything" and documents were not my thing. I am a QPA with 20 years experience but haven't had to keep up with the compliance end in my office, now I do. So, The Heart Act, help, is this like an Interim Amendment. We prepare our own docs so can someone tell me exactly what I need to do to make sure that all our plans are in compliance and do all plans have to have this amendment? On a separate note, where do I find the information on what Interim Amendments are due by 12/31 and who must have them? Thanks

Have a client with a late 5500EZ? Realize there is no program for them to use apparently so what's the process. Just file and include a letter begging for reduced penalties?

Have a Terminated PS/ESOP Plan. The ESOP was coverted to cash many years back and was actually terminated prior to the PS being terminated but it's one plan. We've been distributing to participants from the ESOP for a couple years now. The client is trying to wrap it all up now and avoid another years tax form filing. Because there is QJSA language still in the plan therefore spousal consent it required, I assume I cannot roll to an IRA such as PenChecks for balances over $ 5000. What are the steps I need to take to get these distributions made or rolled for those participants who are not responding? What notices do I need? I did the research but honestly, I was overwhelmed so I turn to you. Thanks.

YEP, that would be the one. I'm already having issues with their system as far as it being jammed. Had 4 failed submissions and 24 hours later, they cleared on their own. This is going to be more of a nightmare than it already it.

So, anyone here that if you haven't efiled by 10/12, web client isn't guaranteeing the transmittal? What are the other options for our late filers, DOL site?

If it's a Schedule B, it's the N/A's. That was my problem, same error. Second page of B in Carryover Spot. Relius import automatically puts a NA in, need to put 0.

You'll never believe this one. Just got a letter from the IRS stating that my Schedule B was not signed and dated therefore was rejected. This was on a plan submitted 3 WEEKS AGO. They already sent a letter. Here's the kicker, my Schedule B was signed and dated. So, don't know whether the warning we receive through Web Client (Relius), that we get everytime regarding signatures and dating are causing these letters to be generated, or, if this letter is actually referring to another issue and the letter is wrong. Anybody seen this yet??

No credential needed. You need to file for an electronic pin and you attach a copy of the signed forms to Efile. You do need authorization from the client to file on their behalf.

Can anyone give me guidance where it was said we could do that? I know we used to but for some reason, some in my office think it's not a good idea. I just want to get started but looking for reinforcement. Thanks

I thought of that but we were concerned that it may be more of a headache than it's worth. Where was it that suggested we could use that? I couldn't find the original source.

So, who else has heard late summer for the release of the EZ? This is according to the DOL. What is everyone doing? Waiting I suppose? using the 2008 form, SF (not a good option).... Just want some thoughts. Thanks.

Situation is in order for me as a TPA to be able to perform certain tasks on one of the mutual fund websites for my clients which are clearly not fiduciary, the authorization I need to perform those tasks, will also give me the ability to allow a distribution. So, if a participant submitts a request online for a distribution and it needs authorization, my electronic sign on into the plan could be used to authorize the distribution if I so chose to do that. Although I would never do this, we always have Trustees sign on distributions, the option would be there. So, although we would never exercise this option, will that make us a fidicuary, and if so, what are my options. Can we get a letter from the Trustees stating that we are only allowed to perform certain tasks with the authorization power we need?

Situation is in order for me as a TPA to be able to perform certain tasks on one of the mutual fund websites for my clients which are clearly not fiduciary, the authorization I need to perform those tasks, will also give me the ability to allow a distribution. So, if a participant submitts a request online for a distribution and it needs authorization, my electronic sign on into the plan could be used to authorize the distribution if I so chose to do that. Although I would never do this, we always have Trustees sign on distributions, the option would be there. So, although we would never exercise this option, will that make us a fidicuary, and if so, what are my options. Can we get a letter from the Trustees stating that we are only allowed to perform certain tasks with the authorization power we need?

Relius has said you absolutely can't use () so, we'll be deleting that from all our 401ks. This is kind of nuts.

Then why not turn off the CapsLock key? The answer to your question depends entirely on the precise wording of the amendment, and how it interacts with other plan language. It may also depend on the termination date(s) of the affected EEs. Yes, that means that some of the "partial distributions" might get 100% vesting and some others might not. The Plan Administrator probably needs advice of experienced ERISA attorney. Well, the ERISA attorney seems to think we can go ahead and payout out on the partially vested amounts. All term dates are prior to the amendment terminating the plan and 100% vesting.

Great, this whole thing is just crazy. Also it seems you can't have parenthesis so the plan administrator phone number also must go in it's entirety because relius automatically inserts the parenthesis on area code.