Bill Presson

Tom, While not unexpected, this is a sad day for the rest of us. You've been a tremendous contributor to this forum and to the benefits world at large. I wish you all the very best.

We worked with them to help design it and are starting to use it extensively. We don't use it for client signatures. We use it strictly to track where the distribution is in the process. They needed to have some options for people that run in house daily as well.

It's not unusual to have a different entity own the building. Does that rental company have any employees? And I don't think real estate is one of the professions that are subject to ASG rules.

Agree with this. They've never done a payroll advance? Or deducted for United Way? I find it hard to believe.

I still think that you are overthinking this. It has NOTHING to do with the plan. The employer kept some money from the employees that they shouldn't have. The employer now needs to give it to the employee. Yes, the 2017 w-2 shows incorrect deferrals, but it doesn't change their tax situation. They paid taxes on everything they got. I think the employer gives them the money now and moves on.

This is actually a pretty typical set up for a not for profit. They usually will refer to the profit sharing plan as the 401(a) plan. I'm curious about the "one has recently learned of the other" and what you mean by that. Are you just talking about the TPA firms doing the work?

If it's under 100 participants then a welfare benefit plan is generally not required to file.

My friend, Kirsten Curry with Leading Retirement Solutions, announced this earlier this week: https://www.seattlechamber.com/HOME/membership/member-news/detail/new-cannabis-401(k)-plan-levels-the-playing-field-for-cannabis-companies

I believe Derrin covered much of this here:https://benefitslink.com/cgi-bin/qa.cgi?n=214&db=qa_who_is_employer

You have to look at what the plan says and I'm pretty confident this won't be it.

I think you could keep the assets "combined" if the assets were in an 81-100 group trust.

If the match is truly calculated on a "per payroll" basis, I would contend that no match can be done for the partners until their income is determined. A draw isn't a payroll. If the plan is going to true up the match, then I'm not as concerned.

Was your company deferring income or were you individually? I find it odd that Nationwide wants to pay your company. You will need to find an attorney if Nationwide won't budge.

This is a good example of why brokerage firms should never process distributions.

There are financial penalties for not issuing/filing the 1099r. Filing two would also be an issue, so make sure to coordinate that. Maybe get something in writing.

1. If your firm has been engaged to prepare 1099s, then you should do so. 2. Even if a 1099 isn't prepared, the participant is responsible for reporting taxable income on their own 1040.

I love how payroll incompetence or software limitations become retirement plan problems. I would recommend getting a new person to run the payroll or getting a new payroll company.

The only one I saw that I don't think was projected was the SIMPLE increase from $12,500 to $13,000

Agree with the others that you can't retroactively terminate the plan. It's a good thing that it was an asset sale. And I agree with both of Bird's answers. Ms Claire Rowland of Nixon Peabody and I just gave a presentation on M&A issues at ASPPA Annual.

Yes.

You're looking for "statutory employee." https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/statutory-employees

Depends on what the consultant is doing. If they're doing everything related to the plan, the 120 might be too much. If there's a distribution department and a plan document department and sales support/onboarding department and notice department an actuarial department, etc., then that carves out a lot of time that the consultant might have been spending on things irrelevant to their job. Then 120 isn't nearly as big a deal. And I would argue that having a consultant all the extraneous things I included isn't the best use of their time.

I would default to what the insurer calls it. FWIW, I've seen most insurance companies call it a stable value fund.

You said it was irrelevant as to why, but it may be very relevant. Companies don't just "change" EINs. So, if a new company was formed or the company was sold or whatever, you need to make sure the new company is actually legally sponsoring the plan.

Whatever you do, don't make the client's problem, your problem. Help them solve their problem and lay out the solutions. Big problems come with big price tags. It's not your fault the client didn't do what they should have done over the years.