Bill Presson

Then why the amendment now? Why not make it effective 1/1/18?

I'm not particularly worried about the timing. There's nothing inherently wrong with making a deposit early. But you just have to pass all the tests at the end of the year and that's why we recommend not doing so. As of now, I still think it's a compensation issue. If it turns out there's not enough comp to support the deposit, then the document will explain what to do with a 415 excess contribution.

If all this happened in 2017, to me it's very possible that the $10k was actually a deferral and the payroll just wasn't completed correctly. So, I don't see this as a plan issue, I see it as a payroll issue that needs to be corrected. WCP

Can any (all) of the $10k be considered a 401(k) deferral? Then I don't think you have any issues. WCP

So it's basically 60 days. For a transfer to be done in good order, I always recommend between 60-90 days. It generally has to be at least 30 days because of the blackout notice. Longer than 90 days is a bit ridiculous. And in this case, I would want it to be 1/1 or shortly after and let the other group handle all the 2017 filings anyway.

I completely agree. I've been on the ASPPA conference committee for 4 years now and will serve as a co-chair for the next 2 years before rotating off. The lack of cooperation from government the last several years has been incredibly frustrating. People are fine with following the rules to get the benefits. But we need to know what the rules are.

Just remember that the IRS response is always deemed to not be a resource AND it wasn't said at this conference. Adam Pozek remembered it from a few years ago. But if your plan ever gets in trouble, Sal or Ms Ilene or Ms Kelsey are available for hire to help get them out. :)

Same.

I clicked just to see if the answer was actually MOOR and not MOOP.

Notifying as a practical matter would almost assuredly be done. Especially to those participants with account balances since they'll be receiving distribution paperwork. But I believe the thrust of the OP is whether is was required which would trigger meeting certain deadlines, etc.

The assets of the plan are owned by the trust and the trust typically has it's own TIN unless the assets are held by a formal recordkeeper. That's the TIN you need to be locating.

I can't believe this thread has two pages.

If you look at the link I provided from 2004, they (at least some of them) reached the conclusion that a former participant with no entitlement to current or future benefits was not required to receive an SAR.

I can't imagine that an active participant without a balance wouldn't be entitled to a copy of the SAR. How that person would be carved out of "participant" would be interesting. Prior BenefitsLink discussion:

Generally if the insurance company sends you the Schedule A, you need to include it.

Yes ma'am. For what other reason (perhaps plan document?) are you concerned about using the EIN for?

If the original plan sponsor is still the plan sponsor and the spin off is a participating employer, then the 5500 would still reflect the original plan sponsor's ID. The participating employer would be listed on the 5500 MEP attachment.

The sponsor's ID I'm assuming hasn't changed. For plans being reported on a 5500, the sponsor's ID and the plan number (eg 001, 002, etc) are the numbers shown on the 5500. For a multiple employer plan, the lead sponsors TIN is typically the one used for the 5500. A plan's trust often, but not always, obtains TIN to show the ownership of the assets. Very rarely does a plan actually get a TIN. In fact, I've been doing retirement plan consulting for more than 30 years and never had a plan need one.

Welcome aboard, Ms Ilene.

How can this not be accurate? [rolls eyes so hard]

I don't see how this is an insurance issue. If he keeps working and has earned income, I'm not aware of anything keeping him from contributing to a qualified plan.

I don't see how it's a tax deferred event. Nothing was withheld from their pay before tax. It's no different (I don't think) from a participant writing checks to pay for COBRA coverage.

Maybe I'm missing something, but since it didn't go through payroll, why would 1-3 even be considered?

Correct, it's determined on the first day of the plan year. For a new plan, though, if there are more than 100 participants, it needs an audit. The 80/120 rule doesn't apply.

Any reason not to change the eligibility to 90 days and add the auto enroll?