K2retire

Nearly every plan that changes service providers is thought by the plan sponsor to be a case like Gary describes. They rarely understand that changing service providers and amending plan provisions does not make it a totally different plan.

If only more sales people had that attitude!

It is my understanding that the SF may not be used for any year before it was initially available.

Employer with a standardized prototype plan has 1 Year of Service requirement for eligibility. The employer mistakenly believed that eligibility must be met each year, and when an employee cut back to less than 20 hour per week work schedule, the employer told them they could no longer defer. Seven months later the employer has asked us how to fix this. Would this fall under the EPCRS correction requiring the employer to make a QNEC for the lost deferral opportunity?

The profit sharing money for only the participants effected by the partial termination would become fully vested.

I agree. And sending a signature page with a new date seems to open up the possiblity of fines for late filing.

We prepare the forms on a cash rather than accrual basis (no need to report that PS receivable). Over 6,000 of our clients had successfully filed by August 2.

We've had several clients who received these notices. All of them were filed July 13 so apparently it's not just the ones on the 15th. The DOL has acknowledged receipt of the filings. The EFAST website shows the signed and dated form. Update: According to Michelle Selim, agent 0144916, with the IRS, these letters were generated because the client has registered as something other than "filing signer". To correct it, the client must write a letter to the IRS requesting abatement of the penalty and enclose a manually signed and currently dated copy of the the signature page of the form. Does that answer make anyone else nervous?

Once again the Federal government exempted themselves from the rules that apply to the rest of us. They do not have QDROs. But they will acknowledge something that is very similar if you follow their rules. I don't remember exactly what they called it, but located relatively easily on their web site a year or so ago. It may be necessary to know if you're talking about FERS or CSRS.

That was my guess as well, but I was hoping for something a little more definitive!

A plan with a safe harbor match provision is thinking about amending to remove the safe harbor. A notice that the safe harbor will be discontinued in 30 days is distributed. Plan sponsor changes their mind after figuring out that the top heavy minimum will cost more than the safe harbor match. No amendment is ever signed. What sort of notice is required now?

It was my understanding that the Special Tax Notice is required for all distributions. If that's the case, why not include the 402(f) notice as well?

I've heard Derrin Watson emphatically say that in NO circumstances could a QDRO AP be anyone other than the spouse or fromer spouse. Even if the QDRO was for child support and someone other than the former spouse (such as a grandparent) had custody of the children. Why is this different?

If you are paying her directly, it might be deductible to you and taxable to her as alimony. That's a question for your accountant.

With negative self employment earnings, you have exceeded the 415 limit of the LESSER of $49,000 or 100% of compensation.

Well, Lawrence is quite the party town -- but that's usually in basketball season, not summer.

I'm not a lawyer either, but I agree with Mike.

Our prototype Corbel document specifies that the Plan Administrator is the Plan Sponsor. What does yours say?

Our service agreement spells out that if our services are terminated (by us or by the client) they will be considered to have an IDP. I didn't see the question of unauthoirzed amendments spelled out. Mike is right, of course, it really is the employer's plan -- not the service provider's. But we certainly don't have to continue to do business with or provide services to clients who don't want to play by the house rules.

What do they want to do? I think a case could be made for merging the existing plan into the MEP. I also had a similar situation a few years ago where the original employer's plan was amended to allow leased employees to participate and continued as it had been before.

Predictions are difficult, especially about the future. As difficult as it is to predict things you can control (or at least influence) it is even more difficult to predict what Congress might do to the tax rates in the future.

You are correct.

The issue is not whether the TPA can be sued, but whether the company can win the suit. Anyone can be sued for anything, regardless of the merit of the case.

Austin, as a CPA and QPA you appear to be uniquely qualified to point out that disparity to the regulators. Write your congressmen!

Even overlooking the possiblity of deceptive intent, the tax return only reports the marital status on December 31. An employee who married (or divorced) on December 30 would not have their status accurately reflected on the tax return for what was true for plan purposes on the other 364 days of that year.