Bill Presson

Why does this matter?

Generally, the plan either refunds the amount to the employee or forfeits the money and makes the employee whole outside the plan. The goal is to put the employee and the plan back in the same place they would have been if the employee hadn't entered early. I interpret that to disgorge deferrals plus gain or makeup the loss. If the plan forfeits the deferral (and it had a loss) and makes the employee whole outside the plan, the employee would be better off than a refund minus a loss.

I would recommend doing so.

There might be a couple of fixes: return the money, amend to let the few participants in early, etc. All, I think, based on the numbers of people. But, just to snipe a bit, I'm betting the TPA didn't allow ineligible participants to defer, it was the HR/payroll people for the employer.

If the leasing company excludes all the owners (who are automatically HCE), then they have a better shot at passing coverage tests. If the inhouse employees are all NHCEs, then you can definitely cover just them and automatically pass. We've done similar things for restaurant chains, etc.

Signature date is different than effective date. To me, it's late.

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.