EPCRSGuru

Not knowing anything about you or your situation, it is completely inappropriate for anyone on this Message Board to offer you any sort of advice or suggestions whatever. Free advice is worth what you pay for it.

Great!!! Thanks so much....

I dont file forms for clients but p3 of the 8955 instructions allows filing by using a personal computer to complete the form online at the irs website and then printing the form with the appropriate bar code that captures the information entered on the form. I was hoping to avoid that if possible. We have 8 forms with around 500 participants for each one. The online form on the web site is good if you have a limited number of participants, but I have not figured out how to cut and paste an entire row--meaning that I have to separately cut and paste entry doce, SSN, first, middle and last names, etc. Unless I am doing something wrong?

Having purchased everything we needed to file the 8955 SSA, and having produced lovely-looking paper copies, we have been unable to file electronically. ATX says that we are unable to do so. (I don't know why--I am not the one pushing the "send" button.) 1. Does anyone have any positive experience filing the 8955 electronically using ATX software? 2. Given that today is the deadline and assuming that ATX is no longer an option, can anyone suggest an electronic Plan B? 3. Failing that, is there a paper Plan B option? Any suggestions gratefully received!

Thank you. That is what I thought but I felt like I needed some reinforcement before I raise the issue. Appreciate the help!

I am a new HR employee for a plan sponsor whose retirement plans are in a "multi-vendor environment." There are three investment companies whose funds are available; one of them is designated as the master record-keeper but there are various logistical problems with that arrangement so there is no central source for the employer to obtain information. Vendor X's lifecycle fund family is designated as our QDIA--the actual default fund depends upon the participant's DOB. Participants who make no election are placed in the Vendor X lifecycle fund, which is fine. However, I have discovered that some participants designate Vendor Y or Vendor Z as their investment provider of choice, but then do not proceed to name a fund. If the vendor receives a contribution from us with no investment instructions, it defaults into its own lifecycle funds, not the Vendor X fund that is designated as our official QDIA. Does anyone besides me think that is a problem? It seems to me that we need to a) retrieve the money from Vendor Y or Z if there are no instructions and invest it with Vendor X, b) track down the participant to get a Vendor Y or Z fund designation, or c) add the Vendor Y and Z lifecycle funds as "official" QDIAs. The answer to this question affects the content of our QDIA notice as well as who provides it. There has been some discussion of having the vendors provide the Notice, but is it fair to Vendors Y and Z to ask them to send out notices describing the Vendor X funds? Any thoughts are welcome. Thanks!

What would the employee be expected to do other than notify the benefits department? Seems to me this is the price the Plan sponsor pays for not adequately training its HR reps.

I have an almost identical situation but it affects multiple participants. Does anyone know how the VCP program and the participant's filing of the 5329 interact, if they do? We are a cash-balance plan whose determination letter application has been in limbo for many years. No determination letter = no VCP. The affected participants are asking us to provide letters documenting the situation to attach to their 5329, but we are being advised not to do so pending the VCP, which of course has not even been filed yet. I figure we can put the participants off until 12/31 if we have to, but we won't get our VCP resolved by then either, so what's a participant to do? Any thoughts?

Sorry, but not at all reasonable or reputable. I might be able to understand it if it were a question of a day or two, but if you have clients who are operating their Plans without current documents more than a year after they were due, you have problems. Operationally, trying to run a plan without a document is fraught with potential for administrative error. And what about SPDs for participants? I second Kevin C's motion to CYA. Good luck, and I am glad to see that you asked the question.

Can't speak to legal or compliance issues, but I wonder what they are afraid of. If the prior communications were well done there should be no issue. If they weren't and calls are generated, wouldn't the client like to know now while any potential errors would be relatively easy to fix? Don't they think that participants will call anyway when they get their (quarterly?) statements? Legal/compliance considerations are one thing; participant/employee relations are quite another.

Does anyone else besides me run afoul of "flood control"? Perhaps I just type faster than average (since my mother made me take typing lessons so I'd "have something to fall back on") but as I navigate through the forums I routinely get the dreaded red message box, making me sit there and count to 15 before I click again. I understand why flood control is a good thing, just wondering if it bothers other people and if it can be changed to a different amount of time.

I suppose this is too easy and that it has already been thought of.... Our amendments include a Board of Directors vote for corporations (and similar Actions for other sorts of entities) authorizing and directing a person to execute them. I have ahd these accepted without comment when submitting terminating plans for determination letters.

A participant (a non-US citizen) in a 457(b) plan sponsored by a non-profit took a leave of absence and returned to his home country. His LOA later expired and his employment was terminated. This triggered a letter informing him of his distribution options under the 457 plan, including the notice that distribution would automatically occur if he did not respond in a timely manner. Unfortunately, the letter was sent to his US address, as was the distribution check and W-2 form produced when he did not respond. The check was never cashed and was returned as undeliverable, but per legal advice his account balance was never restored and the W-2 never canceled. Now it is more than 4 years later and the employee has returned to the US and has been rehired by the employer maintaining the 457. Now the question is, what happened to his 457 balance? Does the check get reissued and the participant advised to amend (or file) his tax return for the year in question? (It is not clear whether the participant had any US income for that year that would otherwise require him to file a US return.) This appears to be the legal solution but not necessarily the one the participant would like to hear. Are there any loopholes that would allow the employer to treat the situation as though a timely election to defer had been made? Is anyone surprised that the IRS has not already questioned the situation considering that there is a W-2 out there without an associated tax return? Has anyone ever experienced anything similar? All thoughts appreciated.

I have never heard of them, but the situation you describe would make me nervous. A Service Agreement clearly outlines the responsibilities of all the parties and protects the Plan (and the TPA) from all sorts of things. I think it is dangerous to hand over your plan records to them without an Agreement in place. Once they have your data (which is of course includes salary and identifying data for all your participants) it is too late. Certainly transitioning to a new record-keeper a chore; un-transitioning is even more so. I'd run like h*** in another direction.

Bravo David! And thanks to you and the many moderators and posters who make BenefitsLink such a helpful resource; I have relied on it greatly for years. Even we lurkers appreciate it more than you may realize!

The Last Lecture, by the late CMU professor Randy Pausch. Book is terrific--DVD of the actual lecture is even better.

Job market in Boston is not so hot at the moment--speaking from experience!

I had a plan once, while I was still young and naive, in which every employee shared the same last name--or so I thought. Turns out the family-owned corporation was only allowing family members to participate and was threatening all the non-family members with termination if they tried to enroll. (We resigned the account.)

It is an urban legend of pension practice that plan administrators can withhold payments of benefits while a plan is waiting for a determination letter after termination since a determination letter request does not trump a participant's right to be paid in accordance with the terms of the plan as required by ERISA. Terminated plans awaiting a FDL are required to be administrered in accordance with their terms which requires that benefits be paid to participants who are entitled to a distribution, for example, on account of termination. Plan administrators do not have any discretion to withhold benefits while awaiting a FDL. File a request for benefits and see what happens. If the plan does not respond within 60 days then file a claim for benefits under the claims procedures in the SPD. Well that's an appalling piece of information to be learning at this stage in my career. For years and years I have seen employers freeze distributions pending IRS letters with nary a peep from anyone. We usually relied on language that said that distribution would be made "as soon as administratively feasible". Am I (and my partners in crime) alone in the pension universe, or have other people been doing this too?

Do you know if the employer has filed with the IRS for a favorable determination letter (one which states that the termination of the Plan does not affect its tax-qualified status)? Filing such an application is optional, but many employers who choose to apply will delay distributions until they have received the IRS' blessing, in case anything comes up during the examination which affects the Plan's operation. You might also want to check the provisions of the document and the Summary Plan Description. Some plans pay out only after the annual anniversary date; others will pay quarterly. This should be in the document/SPD.

It seems that you cannot unfriend someone once he or she has friended you, even if the "friendship" is involuntary and unwanted. Now I have something in common with my teenagers! I recently had someone friend me against my wishes. I had set my preferences to ignore all of this person's posts, but it never occurred to me that I should also specify that no one could friend me without my prior approval! It seems unusual that someone I have never met, spoken to or corresponded with and whose posts I have not read for many months, would want me to be a "friend."