Bill Presson

Agree with Peter. This would be similar to medical malpractice tail coverage.

Especially this part, bless all their hearts.

It's like the worst of each type combined.

I don't think so. It's not too dissimilar from failing to distribute a SH notice (excluding the breach that you mention). Any chance the notice was posted on the RK site?

Pretty sure SHNEC money can't be used to offset integrated contributions. Unless everyone is in their own group (which is at least implied as not the case), then this allocation isn't being done correctly.

Seriously, look here: https://employeebenefitsjobs.com/jobs/by_date.html?utm_source=menu

Just to add that (I'm pretty sure) a trustee can be removed immediately and without notice if there's any concern about the safety of the assets.

We also prepare a notification for the plan administrator to the trustee that's being removed. It is dated and signed by the PA and asks the former trustee to sign. But, it states the person is no longer a trustee the earlier of the signed acknowledgment or 31 days, whichever is earlier.

The biggest issue I have with the ASG "rules" (as opposed to the CG regs or the very obvious 2 practices owning a 3rd one ASG) is that they are almost always snapshots and subject to very subtle shifts that can change quickly OR slowly over time. So even if one gets a legal opinion that today, the arrangement is an ASG, that could easily change in the future without anyone doing very much. Too much liability for me to take on.

I wouldn't venture this far into the ASG waters without sending the client to legal counsel.

We almost always use the first day of the plan year whether that's retroactive for the current year or a few months ahead for the new year. If there are specific changes made to the plan, then we'll use special effective dates. What I don't want to happen is to have to look at two plan document to see what impacted the plan for a year.

This is incredibly important and accurate and, all too often overlooked. And I'm referring both to the agreement and to what might be allowed.

Do you mean Section 89? Lots of people bet a lot of time and money on that.

I always assumed @K-t-F meant "Keogh to Four 0 1 k" 😁

As long as you don't have a letter from the DOL, you can still do DFVC and I would highly recommend doing it quickly.

Meaning they make the effective date of the restatement 7/1 (for example), rather than 1/1? No issue unless you change the plan year with the restatement. Also, just have to avoid changing stuff that can't be changed in a safe harbor plan. Otherwise no huge issues.

Good grief.

Correct. Just be sure the plan document allows an "in-kind" transfer.

You need a classification of employees to exclude, like a division or a location or a job category.

At some point, you have to walk away. Again, please don't make their problem, your problem.

We have a large number of them as well. As BG mentioned, the vast majority are single owner (sole prop, single member llc, single owner s corp), but it's not unusual to have multiple owners and no employees. And we do ask. I haven't run into issues historically, but I'm very curious where this thread is going.

That's the definition of an owner only plan.

If you really feel badly for them, do the restatement (and termination package) as a gift. That way it gets done right and you can sleep at night.

You need to make sure the problem remains the client's and does not become yours. If I were in your situation, I would explain that there are lots of penalties associated with not doing the things you recommend and you're not an attorney (I'm assuming). If they want to terminate without doing what you recommend, they need legal counsel and you'll follow counsel's advice.

Well, someone gets to make the decision on when the plan was really established.