TPApril

There was not necessarily an in-service w/drawal violation since the 1st plan allowed at age 59 1/2 which owner was.

At the time of distribution, this was an owner only plan, no other participant. Owner rolled over to IRA and has not touched the balance since.

Small business was convinced by an advisor to start a new plan and the best way to do that would be to terminate the old plan rather than transfer assets. So they are both 401(k) and there is a successor rule issue that has been violated. Trying to come up with solution to fix. Can resolution to terminate first plan be revoked and 5500's amended?

I'm looking to do the right thing in a similar situation, but again it seems a bit excessive. 2013 had exactly 1 401(k) deposit that was 1 day late (8th day). Lost earnings just over $1. I believe based on this thread that an acceptable approach is, have the sponsor deposit the $1 + 10% of that into the trust to affected participants, then report it on the 5500 and do not file vfcp or 5330? What is current belief system on this?

Has anyone come up with a farthest filing date to file for a company that has been around all this time, has never filed 5500 and wants to file as far back as necessary? 1980? 1990?

in practice, how often has there been a bad apple that has disqualified a multiple employer plan that was not able to be fixed by one of the correction programs?

This is not a prototype and the provisions says terminated participants forfeit upon incurring "a Break in Service"

Existing 401k plan document appears to be completely silent to this.

Is the buy-back provision (of rehired employees who wish to restore their prior distribution in order to have their nonvested balance restored) a required provision or is it optional?

Financial advisor office receives the contribution spreadsheet, misses it, and catches it 8 days after small business' last payroll, resulting in late deferral. Advisor firm wants to take responsibility of the small lost earnings amount. To what extent can they actualy make deposit on behalf of the company, or can the source of the lost earnings be the advisor firm. Or am I being too nitpicky?

okay, another question: company has two locations, each in a different state with a different set of benefits. They decide to create a wrapped plan for both groups. Can they provide different SPD's or must there be 1 SPD that includes all benefits within the wrapped plan?

Company has some benefit plans for Union ee's only, some plans for Non-Union only and some plans include both. Currently there are two wrapped plans (union, nonunion) but the nonunion plan has some benefits which include union. what might a best approach be - keep the two plans separate or actually just combine all into one megawrap plan?

Case: Plan Sponsor of PS plan has always been husband/wife and always filed 5500EZ. Have not restated plan since non-standardized prototype which received DL in 1995, document signed in 1997. Question: Is it satisfactory to restate the plan to a new prototype and submit VCP with Appendix C Part II Schedule 2?

This thread seems to be closely related to my question so I will post here. Situation is that fees are being assessed by total balance so each participant is paying their proportionate share. Selfdirected accounts are set up with one account by money source. Question is-can the portion allocable to a Roth 401k account be pulled from the same participants standard 401k account? End result is same fee amount is being paid, just not necessarily from the source that contributed to the calculation.

Well, I'm not the one proposing it, I'm trying to argue against it and looking for justification. What you said is exactly what will transpire if client proceeds.

Thank you for the helpful input. What do you think of an administration fee that is determined based on assets, but then converted to be charged as a per-capita fee rather than prorata fee?

Company is assessed by recordkeeper a flat fee per participant for administration of 401k plan. Company in turn wants to charge this back to the plan as a flat fee per participant rather than proportionate to account balance. %age-wise, this can be significant (not reasonable) for a new participant who defers minimally based on NHCE wages to the plan. How is this generally approached?

Thought I would look for some current updates to timing as related to FSA contributions? Is there some guidance somewhere that I might be referred to for the following questions: Consider that Employer uses a TPA firm to administer both HEalth & Dependent Care fsa plans. 1. What is the timing of deposits from Employer to fsa accounts (which apparently is not a trust) 2. What is the timing for the TPA firm to then reflect these deposits they have received into the individual accounts (this seems to be the problem at hand my client is inquiring about) 3. What is the timing for the TPA firm to pay out a request for reimbursement 4. If there is any delay to any of the above, are there any 'lost earnings' payable to employees? These questions are perhaps more applicable to the Dependent Care side because reimbursements cannot be requested until the accounts reflect the contributions.

Company has just learned that they have been filing Sched A for an ASO plan which is funded and paid through general assets of the company. Question is, to what extent should they consider amending past filings to exclude said Sched A or just leave as is and exclude from future forms.

Prior to us taking over a 401k plan, the employer paid the IRS directly from her own funds the 20% withholding amounts that were withheld within the plan from multiple accounts cashed out from the plan one year. Rather than asking why, we just wanna figure out how to reconcile the amount that is now stuck in the plan but does not apparently belong to any participants anymore and would seemingly be reimbursable to the owner. Not comfortable paying this to her but dont really know what to do.

Circumstances: Plan Sponsor has been contacted by DOL re 2012 5500 for delinquient contributions which included 2011 late deposits with lost interest deposited in 2012 and one 2012 late deposit with lost interest deposited in 2014. Excise tax for all is well below $100. In line with VFCP, 5330 will be included with submission, though not formally filed. Question:Any thought on best practice - include with submission only 2012 5330 in line with relevant 5500 under inquiry, or include 2011-2012, or include 2011-2014?

Plan Sponsor recvd EBSA ltr to file VFCP for late 401k as reported on 2011 5500. When I looked at 5500, delinquent amount reported includes only 401k, not loan pymts which were paid simultaneously. Considering correction approaches: option 1: file vfcp based on reported amount of 401k option 2: amend 5500 to add delinquent loan pymt amts and incorporate that into vfcp thoughts much appreciated .

John: I am trying to determine the reason these voluntary benefits were included and designated ERISA benefits. I would like to amend them plan to take them out. Not only that, they were never included in the 5500 filings.

I will attempt to respond as to what I understand you are asking. Ultimate conclusion was that if there are two medical options, when the sum of the ee's exceeds 100, there is a 5500 filing requirement. The EBIA manual still recommends preparing a wrap plan document to include the two carriers together for their 5500 filing. Unrelated Conclusion - The EBIA manual presents that having multiple medical carriers does not alone mean they have to be filed together and takes the strong approach that any time multiple carriers are included in a 5500 filing, that there be a wrap around plan document prepared. It says that such separate medical carriers can still file their own 5500.

Situation: AFLAC plans for different case in question are determined to be fully voluntary. They were included in the wrap around plan document. Does this alone make the plans subject to ERISA with the need to satisfy disclosure requirements? Whatabout if DCAP is included in the document? Or, to restate question more generally - If company chooses to treat non-ERISA benefits as ERISA plans, what is the action that proclaims them as subject to ERISA? Would including them in the wrap around plan document be such an action?