Bill Presson

I'm not an attorney. But given the facts that you were a partner and you admit that you threw away the notice, I would toss your claim as fast as I could. And I would make you pay everyone's costs just for being a pain.

The answer I got back from Ft. William is: "The plan needs to be amended. Then, you would select an hours equivalency in Questions D.2a/b, D.14a/b and E.2a/b. In the second question for each, you can apply only to people who do not have specific hours." Maybe this will help those with other document providers. This would allow continuing to count actual hours for those that work hourly and apply equivalencies to the few that have to have it.

Monica, can't find it now, but I'm pretty sure the driver would be credited with hours on an equivalency basis (1 day = 10 hours, etc). Not sure if it's a document issue or a regulation issue, but that's my recollection. If I get a chance, I'll try to find something definitive before tomorrow.

George, what part are you saying you haven't heard/seen? That premiums are now charged by age? How does the concept of the premium reimbursement presented in the Zane link coordinate with the IRS Notice 2013-54? http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-13-54.pdf

Interesting. I have not heard of them, but will be curious if anyone else runs across this.

No. I'm just trying to wrap my head around being employed 365+ days and not qualifying.

So, if I'm in the plan in 2013 and I work all of 2014 AND work 10 days into 2015, I still don't get the full match?

I agree with Flyboyjohn. Our accounting firm parent looked into this and we couldn't see a way to make money doing it unless we were doing the payroll.

Isn't that the whole point of this board?

We've had lots of employers in this situation with perhaps one difference. Most of them have had a POP cafeteria plan that allowed the employees premium to be pre tax when it was part of the group plan. When they move to the exchange individual coverage, there's no way to do it pre tax or reimburse it pre tax (as @flyboyjohn points out), so the cost differential may be bigger for our clients.

Now y'all are just splitting hairs.

The document likely allows employees that have not yet reached the eligibility requirements for contributions to be allowed to do a rollover. Almost all the plans we work with allow this, so it's very common. Unfortunately, almost none of our plans allow loans, so I can't help with that part.

Here's what is generating this. I got a question about it yesterday, so I had to spend some time last night reading up. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-14-54.pdf This notice allows participants to split a distribution between a regular IRA and a Roth IRA. That will allow after tax money to be rolled to an IRA. Here's an article from Forbes (there are others touting the same thing). http://www.forbes.com/sites/ashleaebeling/2014/09/19/irs-issues-401k-after-tax-rollover-rules/ The ACP testing issues are still a big problem. But for a small plan or even a solo 401(k), looks like it might be an option.

Congratulations, Dave!

I'll be very interested to see if anyone else has thoughts on this as well.

We don't use Relius for 5500's anymore, but I got this email earlier today: SunGard prides itself on providing the highest level of service and solutions that the retirement industry expects. During the recent October filing period, Relius Government Forms Web Client successfully electronically filed over 50,000 Form 5500's. For the majority of our users, Relius Government Forms provided reliable and timely filing services. There were a small subset of clients who were affected by latency issues which occurred sporadically over a three day period from October 13-15. Our executive management team, incident response team and network infrastructure teams have reviewed the information and timeline of events, and are in the process of taking action to ensure issues will be resolved as we move to our Relius Government Forms ASP release in January 2015. We understand October is an important time for your business and our highest priority is ensuring that our systems remain accessible to you and your customers, and that user requests and transmissions are completed in a timely fashion. We know that any filing issues can cause frustration, and recognize the important role our applications and services have in your business. Thanks your for your business and your patience. Sincerely, Misty Austin-Wessels Executive Vice President SunGard Relius

Really wish it was in the form of a badge.

It's a research product from Thomson Reuters used by a great number of CPA firms. https://tax.thomsonreuters.com/products/brands/checkpoint/checkpoint-tools/

I just got my renewal card a few days ago.

FWIW, I asked a couple of our auditors (We're a CPA firm that audits close to 200 plans) and they said there isn't any GAAP or specific information on this. The only thing they found was in the Checkpoint Tools for the audit program that said to be included as a receivable, the amount had to "be withheld from compensation during the plan year, but not remitted to the trust until after the end of the plan year." Not sure they will accept that, but that's all we could come up with.

I'm sorry, but this line made me chuckle. I don't think you had said that previously.

The new service provider that took over the plan in 2011? Or a new service provider that's getting the plan now in 2014? If the first one, why are they now saying it's an issue 3 years later? There is a new service provider now in 2014. This new provider is questioning the signature date. Okay. Based on what you've posted, I think they're wrong.

new service provider says the provided document was not signed timely. The new service provider that took over the plan in 2011? Or a new service provider that's getting the plan now in 2014? If the first one, why are they now saying it's an issue 3 years later?

To Laura's point above, make sure you're including mutual fund operating expenses in the calculation. So your firm might not be included, but other entities might.

Who applied for the death benefit?