K2retire

Obits can be helpful. But if there have been any family feuds, they can also be inaccurate. I've seen more than one where estranged siblings or children were omitted. I've also seen parent/child relationships listed that were really step-parent/step-child. In some states adoptees are permitted to inherit from their biological parents. In others they are not.

That is a terrific description of what SHOULD happen. But I've not seen many plan sponsors who do it. "That's what we pay our TPA/recordkeeper/advisor to do," is the most common response.

In my experience the DOL will not tell you why you are being investigated. But the investigation occurred shortly after filing the form indicating that the provider refused to provide the information. And it was primarily focused on the plan's fees.

The one time I did that, the client was immediately investigated by the DOL. It caused them grief, not the errant record keeper.

Would that not be illegal discrimination based on religion?

That is what I remember learning as well. Back then we were dealing with primarily balance forward plans, so there wasn't really a question about whether or not the receivable was included in the account balance.

I use Datair now, but used Relius on a prior job. I find Datair to be far more "quirky" than Relius. Although that may be due to better training that I received on Relius.

I have been asked by a prospective client how the $5,000 force out limit applies to a terminated participant who will receive an additional allocation that will bring the balance over $5,000. For example, assume the participant terminates employment July 9 with a balance of $4,750. But the plan makes a profit sharing contribution after the end of the plan year. The participant will receive an additional $600 at that point, which would bring the account balance to $5,350 (assuming no change in the investment balances). Knowing that many record keepers automate this process and would process the distribution before the end of the year with no way to anticipate a contribution receivable, I'm curious what the potential liability to the plan sponsor might be, if any. Does the answer change if the termination or distribution occurs after the end of the plan year? Or if it is a required contribution, such as a safe harbor other fixed contribution?

It is a contribution in the sense that it must be included in the participants' 415 limit for the year.

And after you find a new job, we'd love to know which payroll company it was!

And 4 years later, the same questions arises again.

Both music and humor are well documented to enhance memory of information. These are great ideas!

Only 1 year sounds wonderful to me! I have a couple of them that are going on 3 years. One was focused on fees. The other on the appropriateness of a particular asset.

If there is a valid Qualified Domestic Relations Order (which is not the same thing as a divorce decree) the second marriage would not void that provision.

Doesn't your document software have a form?

I agree that there shouldn't be anything further to do. There are a few investment houses that issue participant loans from their own funds, rather than liquidating the participant assets. In those cases, they place a hold on the related participant balance. If they never offset the loan when it was defaulted, the letter could be a notice of an internal accounting entry that they are going to make to fix their oversight.

I've also run into that. It can be very confusing!

I am afraid to ask!

My husband's retirement gig is driving for a limo company. A couple of years ago he had great fun driving Neil Sedaka. They sang in the car all the way to the airport. Neither my husband's co-workers nor mine had any idea who he was.

Interesting. I was always taught that part of the hardship requirements was that there was no other way to pay for the expense. That line of credit may not be ideal, but it does sound like another way to pay for it. And in the long run, it may be cheaper than paying the taxes and early withdrawal penalty on the hardship.

The excess amount was likely not eligible for rollover. If it is not returned, it will potentially require amending tax returns and possible excess IRA contributions for those years. The logistics can get tricky, but it should be returned directly to the plan without generating any tax liability.

A client for whom we are the advisor, but not the TPA, claims they were not told that they would be top heavy for 2016. They now say there is no way that they can afford to make the top heavy minimum contribution. We have explained repeatedly that they don't have a choice. In response we are being asked to describe the consequences of not making it. They are apparently willing to accept the risk of being caught because they believe it is unlikely. Beyond disqualification, what are the consequences?

In our case it was not a first audit. The same firm had done the prior year audits.The client had changed payroll companies during the year and had a number of errors associated with that. The form was due 10/15/2015 and was finally filed with the audit 1/6/2016.

I've been in this business since 1999 and two years ago was the first time I'd ever heard of an auditor refusing to provide a report until an error was corrected. I"m wondering if others know if it is because of increasing scrutiny of audits, or just a random bad auditor? We ended up filing with an attachment indicating that the auditor had not yet completed their work. We got the audit and amended the filing with no penalties.

I've run into several payroll companies whose bundled plans require a separate election for catch up contributions. Is that the case in your situation KEC?