Doghouse

John Feldt mentions it more than once above, which is why I was checking. I have a similar situation to the OP, where the 5500 was filed without the audit report, and now, almost a year later, the audit report is complete.

Does anyone know if there is an explicit statement in DFVC guidance to the effect that DFVC is not available if the 5500 has already been filed? Thanks!

I think Mike Preston's offering of 404(o)(5) IS the answer.

I can also promise you that if you file 2 945's with the same EIN, one will end up supplanting the other and you will be in for a lifetime of IRS correspondence.

The firm I work for is a regional player but this is exactly the kind of work we do. We don't even offer recordkeeping services and we bill the project on a flat fee basis. So we do exist!

Having been in this situation myself a few times with clients, if the freeze is more or less permanent, I add language in the amendment to say that no new participants will enter the plan after the effective date of the amendment.

Since the responses have been on the underwhelming side, I thought I'd throw out there that both American Funds and Oppenheimer Funds have a product for this.

I have a plan that is similar to this - the trick is that none of the people are HCE's.

another link that may be of help. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/international_issues_phoneforum_presentation.pdf

Here is an earlier discussion about this...

Do those conditions have an "and" or an "or" between them? An "or" makes sense.

I had a similar situation a few years ago and remember the conclusion being that I could change the effective date of deferrals if I amended before the first effective date, but not after.

I no longer work at that firm, and in any case, that decision would have been up to the owner. There was very little justification given for the decision. Of course, one must recognize that the arbiter is not an actuary. This was just one example, though. We had at least three such situations before removing the arbitration clause from our service agreement.

Are you saying the plan has no provision for hardship withdrawals?

We had a client who refused to pay our bill because we weren't able to eliminate his contribution requirement, while some questionable practitioner across town was able to. In my mind we had a service agreement and our invoice was in accordance with the terms of that agreement - yet, the arbiter split it down the middle. An all-or-nothing restriction is an interesting concept, although I'm not sure always appropriate. I am sure there are situations where both parties have some responsibility. Just not all of them.

There are reasons why both the recordkeeper and the plan sponsor might not like the arbitration provision. If ever utilised, what you will find is that the arbiter will almost always split the difference between the two parties. There is almost never one party determined to be at fault and held financially responsible.

I should mention that the standard QDRO determination fee for one of the very large 401k providers starting with a "V" charges $800. Sorry to get it away from the OP's issue again.

ACP is not the only test that matching contributions must pass in order to be nondiscriminatory. There is also the issue of effective availability, as BG5150 suggests.

We actually dealt with a similar situation here. Both the payroll and the plan were with a payroll provider P***x. The employer changed their payroll provider but the notification that they would also have to find another plan provider came at the 11th hour - too late to get something new set up before the P***x discontinued contribution processing. So we had to give the participants a similar direction. (This is not a client of ours, but someone we were helping out in this situation as a professional courtesy).

Thanks everyone - confirmed my opinion.

Plan's QDRO procedures stipulate that once a QDRO has been certified, there is a 60 day period in which either party may appeal (although I'm not sure if there are limits on WHAT they can appeal). The question is whether the participant or the AP should have investment control of the AP's interest during this time, knowing that there is some chance that the participant could appeal the QDRO in some fashion and the amount payable to the AP could be reduced or eliminated. Thoughts?

If you are using full Adobe Acrobat, you can click on View / Show/Hide / Rulers and Grids/ Rulers.

https://www.asppa.org/News/Article/ArticleID/5583/The-Wait-Is-Over-—-Final-Section-430-Regulations-Issued-at-Last-Part-1 I think this article makes the same reference.

If there is an affiliated service group relationship between the plan sponsor and the CFO's business, perhaps the latter could adopt the plan? He would not be a 1099 employee (if there is such a thing) of his own entity.

This from the EOB... No weekend/holiday rule. The DOL does not provide for an extension merely because the deadline for providing the SAR falls on a weekend or holiday. It is recommended that, in such an event, the employer provide the SAR by the last business day that precedes the deadline.