Bill Presson

If the policy was set up correctly, I don't think the policy will really give a clue. It would have the owner and beneficiary of the policy as the plan whether it was key man or purchased for an individual account. However, the OP says the participant's segregated account shows the premiums. Unless the rest of the accounts also showed premiums, then wouldn't that be your answer??

Yes, the employer has to contribute 50% of the missed deferrals and 100% of the match. See page 30 http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/401k_mistakes.pdf

We had it happen here in Alabama. It was a tax client of the CPA firm. The DOL reached out to us and had us go in and perform the audit to replace the prior CPA. The DOL then referred the prior CPA to the AICPA for sanctions. It was pretty brutal for him and the DOL didn't play around.

You can always ask them to pay the employer back, but you cannot require it.

The availability has to meet the BRF testing so it kind of depends on the definition of management employees. If they are all HCEs, you likely won't pass. If they are paid well, but below the HCE definition, you might be okay.

Since we only do volume submitter documents, we're not even having to worry about the 5307 anymore. Frankly, I didn't realize it was still around.

I think you may be using the term "broker dealer" to just mean "broker". For example John Doe would be a broker, but his firm Merrill Lynch (for example) would be the broker dealer. Some smaller brokerage firms may clear through large broker dealer firms (like LPL Securities) that exist just to provide the back office support that they need.

I think you're making a mistake trying to help them figure out a way around a DRO. What if she decides to get one later? Getting money from a retirement plan is why DROs exist.

The inservice allows access (typically) to more funds than the hardship anyway. The participant can access earnings on deferrals and employer money, so I'm not buying the withholding being a real issue.

Yes, this is often the case, but it shouldn't be. If we're taking over an existing plan, accepting new deferral deposits isn't controlled in any way by information coming the prior provider. We would get the complete census from the client and set up the records. Sometimes the client hasn't provided the election forms (assuming we're using paper) by the time we have to accept the first payroll; that's fine, everyone goes into the default. Obviously, when the wire for prior balances arrive, we can't do anything without the prior provider's breakdown. If a provider can't get this part right, I would seriously question their knowledge and capabilities.

A 5 week blackout? In today's world that's absolutely ridiculous. In any case, the new provider should have been set up to receive the deferral deposits even during the blackout. The client may have to pay penalties, but it's the new provider's fault. Stupid.

Would or Could complete the share release for 12/31/13? And back to the OP question regarding "immediately" purchasing shares: how far into 2013 could you purchase shares and allocate them as of 12/31/2012? What share price would you use in that scenario?

We should all do this so much more frequently.

If all the benefits are part of the cafeteria plan, we consider that the wrap document though I know some others don't agree.

You are correct that there is no filing requirement for the cafeteria plan. However, we often will file a 5500 for the plan to include all the underlying welfare benefits so we can have a single 5500 rather than multiple 5500's.

Not sure how you would offer an FSA outside of a 125 plan, so your question confuses me.

TPApril, in my mind, if you are having to ask this, it's likely time to find a new provider. Use one that will provide benefit cards for the medical fsa accounts and reimburse the dependent care no more than a week after payroll. Now that's assuming the employer is causing the difficulty by not making the funds available.

Frankly it would be nice if someone required the brokerage account providers to actually revamp their software and make them play nice instead of always requiring the Relius/Omni/SRT/ASC/Datair crowd to do so.

Each plan stands on it's own for audit purposes. Here's group that did a good job in explaining the process: http://www.benefit-resources.com/blog/bid/123203/Avoiding-a-Plan-Audit-and-cutting-costs

Not true. If I feel that I need to save 7% of my income in order to fund my retirement, I may think about lessening my deferral if I knew that the company was giving me 3% at the get-go. Okay, I'll grant that (though the 7% should be higher ). What I really meant is that the deferral would not cause any change in the amount of the employer contribution.

Agree. I'm also not as worried about the 30 day notice when it's safe harbor nonelective because that part has 0 impact on their decision to defer.

I downloaded the two most recent sample tests and studied those. My biggest fear was that I shouldn't even have to study since I've been in this business for 30 years! But the tests allowed me to review some things I don't deal with every day. I took the first one on a Friday and the second the following Monday. I was definitely glad to get it over.

I've never had to get a PoA to talk with the DOL. But I've never had any IRS representative tell me anything about a client without one. They don't mind us talking to them, but won't return the favor. That's the only reason I decided to get my ERPA last year. I've used it once this year and was very useful in not having to get someone else to sit in the room on my behalf. As to whether is makes sense for you has to be your own decision.

So you want legislation to see consumers are not misled and then say consumers do not read the fine print. While I'm opposed to legislation, it would be interesting to see legislation that required consumers to read the fine print and retain proof that they had done so.

Also, make sure they aren't including the deferrals in the deduction calculation. I still see this occasionally.