Bill Presson

It's the same for any plan required to file a 5500. The filing penalties can be extreme especially compared to the relative ease of filing a welfare 5500. As to your second question, we've filed 5500's for plans that include benefits with different policy years. I've never had it questioned by the IRS or DOL as long as we remain consistent.

Agreed.

I think this will actually increase the number of people eligible, though perhaps not participating, in a 401(k). Since, in the retirement world, full time is approximately 20 hours per week, this might indicate a move from two people working about 80 hours per week to three people working about 80 hours per week. Businesses that had been in the 80-95 employee range, might suddenly have 120+ and now have to get an audit. Yuck. I hate thinking about this.

Good question, but I'm afraid I don't know. We use Relius, but never used their web client product. We always just filed directly on the EFAST2 site.

No, they are not. Look at it like this: 1)Assets plus Liabilities = Capital. 2) Therefore, Capital = Assets minus Liabilities I don't think this math works!

The deadline is based on the local time zone where the plan is located. If it was filed a day late last year, you might be okay if you were using the Relius web client. I know that they got a special one day extension for their users.

Antsyness. Yay for new words!

The reason that the incidental limits "do not apply" when you use seasoned money is because the entire transaction is taxable.

The 25% or 50% limit is based on total contributions to the plan, not just the current year. That total does not include rollovers.

When I get employers talking about employees using terms like this, they generally mean employees working less than 30 hours per week because that's how they get excluded from insurance coverage. I always have to explain that qualified plans don't work that way, and I'm betting you get to do that as well.

If the employers are unrelated the $50k limit is based on each employers plan. The $17k deferral limit is an individual limit and you appear to have satisfied that requirement. Based on your info, I don't see an issue.

Keep in mind that cafeteria plans don't actually have a filing requirement; the underlying welfare benefits do.

Ours ranges from 20 to 50 plans depending on the size of the plans in assets, participants & complexity. Very hard to compare numbers from firm to firm. We are a wholly owned affiliate of a CPA firm.

Give the HCE's a pay cut and give them the entire 3% safe harbor.

I thought the DOL gave actuaries the ability to just print their name and initial it. I sign my name because it's less legible!

I thought the DOL gave actuaries the ability to just print their name and initial it.

Yes, you should maintain a nonsafe harbor match source.

Probably only 1 out of 5 of our clients actually received an extension acceptance letter.

Not sure concern is the correct term, but my clients (and others) often express surprise that the 5500 is a public form. I'm not aware of fraud specifically associated with knowing the employer's EIN, but it's used repeatedly in business transactions.

I'm not aware of a time limit, so maybe someone can let us know. But to be blunt, I would be concerned if I were you. Things like this tend to be hints of a company in trouble. You should definitely ask your HR or contact the administrator of the plan to see if you can get an explanation.

Monica, as long as the state insurance dept & the ERPA groups have both approved the class, then it counts for both.

The coverage test you're referring to is in section 410(b). It's based on the number of Highly Compensated Employees covered compared to the number of Non-Highly Compensated Employees covered. The rule of thumb is that you have to cover 70% of the NHCEs, but it's a hard test to describe on a message board. Assuming you have a competent TPA, they should be able to tell you how your census will impact what you want to do. If you need something more specific, just sent me a private message.

Yes, under VCP. This is provided that you did not exceed the 5 year repayment period. You know, I've seen this in several instances where the participant wanted to pay the loan current and resume payments when the loan actually had a significant amount of time left. I allowed the payment even though it was, technically, beyond the cure period. It goes to comfort. If challenged on audit, the IRS agent "may" deem it taxable or actually decide the violation isn't eggregious enough to challenge it (given their potential fixes under Rev. Proc. 2008-50). This will, ultimately, be a judgement call on your part. In instances that I faced, I noticed that a "right to cure" was not communicated to the participant. Had it been communicated and the loans defaulted timely, it wouldn't be an issue. Also, keep in mind the Regs "Require" it to be solved by the end of the quarter following the quarter in which the first payment was missed (as you clearly stated). The plan's provisions may have been sooner (i.e. 60 days). The regs merely preclude the plan from going beyond that period. Good Luck! I agree with this. Assuming it was within the same plan year, I would see what the Employer/Plan Administrator was willing to do. If the date for deeming the loan was in a prior plan/calendar year, I would be less likely to recommend leniency to the Employer.

Yes, ma'am. Worked like a charm for 3 years. Have to give some credit to the DOL for having a stable site.

I really like Relius and have been happy with everything we've used. But I can't tell you how happy I am that we decided not to use Web Client. We just extract the plan from Relius Govt Forms and upload directly to the DOL site. The client logs in and signs, then we go and submit the file. In three years, we've not had a single major problem with the site. I really think Relius needs to end the web client and use those resources for other purposes.