Bill Presson

Was the participant a VT before you took over as TPA? - If no, then you would have found (or not found) a distribution in the assets, thus confirming the current status. - If yes, then this sounds like a data question for the plan sponsor to answer. Just a guess. Yes, she was paid out before we took over. The sponsor is confident of the distribution as well, just no 1099 copy.

We have a plan that we've been TPA for about 10 years. Sometime in the distant past a participant (Y) terminated employment with a vested benefit and was reported as such on the SSA. Following that, we assume, she was paid out since there was no record of her on the information we received. It also appears that no additional notation was completed on another SSA indicating that she was paid out. We don't have a 1099 to show her. Any thoughts or suggestions on other avenues available to confirm the distribution? We're pretty sure it happened between 1997-1999. Thanks.

I think it says "allocation up to 415". I would really rather have the guys in different groups than deal with this.

We've gotten ours completed for everything that has to be done by February 1. We'll finish the 945's next week and the electronic filing (due in March) later. While it was a frustrating situation, I do appreciate the increased notifications on the status and the continuing work to get things resolved.

Agreed. I've registered my frustration with them. I'll be very interested in an explanation as to how this won't happen next year.

Might need a contact for that middle eye!

What about for 2010 if he had continuing receivables collection pay out?

I know this is a bit of a hijack, but what are your thoughts on what would be the real downfall of a TPA agreeing to serve in a fiduciary capacity? With the current legal environment, we're all already at risk anyway.

I agree with you. We essentially complete a checklist of the items required. We then notify the employer/Plan Administrator that the hardship requestor has provided the items on the checklist. They then approve and sign off.

Agreed.

You DO need something saying that. But it can be part of the same document.

Larry, I think you missed the question. The question was about the medical FSA. There is no problem with both husband and wife electing the full $5,000 each for their medical FSA's.

That's why you would add the spenddown provision to your plan. Thanks. We'll make sure that is included.

I would be interested in a reasonable solution for this as well. We have participants that have to make the election at the beginning of the year to cover the day care cost for the summer months. If they leave or are terminated in May, they would also lose the entire amount.

Tom is talking about the bottom right part of IE.

Had the exact issue today. Here was the response from the attorney: As a practical matter, it seems to be a reasonable approach to amend before 12/31 to completely eliminate the safe harbor match for 2010 and beyond until further amended. The regs dealing with suspension of safe harbor seem to deal with "during the year" suspension. This would be a "before the year begins" suspension. However, the regs do not address this particular question, and we are not making any recommendation or suggestion on what this client should do. We are not offering an opinion that it can or can not be done This doesn't tell you much except that it would be an 'outside the lines' attempt. We elected to just give the 30 days notice and match till the end of January.

I'm shocked, shocked that John Bury feels this way.

We're contacting Congressman Artur Davis about this. I would encourage everyone to get involved in this if they can. Silly congress...

If it is a balance forward plan with a single valuation of the assets, then one statement a year is standard. If you are taking distributions and want more control, you should contact the plan administrator about your options for rolling the money to an IRA.

That was understood, but because it is a sole proprietor, and not another, more formal type of business, I think the sole proprietorship exists as long as the individual is alive, even if he is not actively running a business. Now you're confusing me. What entity would adopt the document? I think most people here would use the term "sponsor" to mean the employer adopting the plan, even though Vanguard or someone else might "sponsor" a prototype...but that's just semantics; the bottom line is that you need an employer to adopt the plan, and I'm not sure who you're suggesting would adopt it. As noted, I do think it is ok for the adopting employer to be an inactive sole prop. Bird, I think he means "hopefully not risky" because he won't divulge to the IRS the EIN or SSN when he calls to ask their opinion.

It's not unusual for a member of an LLC to receive guaranteed payments (which is what the $245,000 likely is) and then have a loss on the K-1. The compensation for qualified plan purposes is the net of the two. If the loss is large enough it's possible for the CEO to have 0 compensation. We have several situations for 2009 that are likely to result in this same scenario.

Craig is with ASPPA now.

Am I bad that I chuckled when it was shown that they forgot to file a 5500?

I agree. This is another example of regs that just don't work in the real world. So we all use prime + 1% and wait for the "knock on the door".

Agreed. The 4th Circuit decision nicely dissected the employee issues of ERISA plans from the tax issues over which the IRS has administrative jurisdiction. Yes, they did...and gave even more employers a good reason to not sponsor a voluntary retirement plan.