TPApril

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?

I'm not actually sure what you're asking George. Fully insured plans do not have to file if there are under 100 covered employees. That is the basis of this thread.

Thanks for your follow up. I think I got it now. When individual medical options have greater than 100, they can be treated as separate plans with separate 5500 filings. However, that is not an option when looking at counts below 100 in which case they are treated as 1 for the purpose of 5500 filing requirements, whether or not they file as 1. To avoid filing because each medical option had under 100 would be to not fulfill filing requirements.

KJohnson - I do see this in the EBIA Manual - however, it also goes on to talk about an Employer who offers its employees a choice between a Health Insurance Option and an HMO. It says, without a wrap document, these two carriers would still be considered within 1 plan. Wouldn't this imply the answer to my original question above is yes, they are 1 plan? Only difference, which may not be relevant is that, in my case in question, neither option is an HMO, though as indicated they do not offer equivalent benefits (vision/dental in one not the the other).

Is it common and reasonable for a recordkeeper to automatically charge a Financial Advice Provider Fee for the mere act of having investment information available on the 401(k) plan website?

I will attempt to reword my original post above to hopefully convey an improved understanding: 1) Company of over 100 employees offers multiple benefits (all fully insured) and including health spending (fsa) account plan. They have 2 options for filing 5500s- 1. Wrap it all up and file 1 5500 in which case there does not appear to be any specific info on the fsa; or 2. File separate 5500's in which case there will be a 2 page filing for the fsa plan showing 'General Assets' checked off and no other schedules. in this second case is this still required? 2) Company of under 100 employees files 5500 for its FSA and marks off Trust with Schedule I attached. Do you think this is an arrangement required by some of the fsa tpa's, or can the trust component be removed in favor of a checking account in the name of general assets, and no 5500 required anymore?

That's what I'm trying to assess - it is so easy (and affordable) to amend a 5500, if there is some kind of exposure here. Plan sponsor in question wants to make sure they did not create risk to insurance co.

This is a welfare plan (wish there was a 5500 forum dedicated to welfare plan issues). in one case they actually reported a non-ERISA covered benefit which i think should be removed in an amended filing. in another case in 2009 that commissions were not reported, though they had everything else.

Just looking for thoughts, opinions? New clients' prior 5500s seemed to use Schedule A Part IV item 11 liberally and check off Yes with ease when that was not the case. Think it should be amended and if so all the way back to 2009? To what extent is the IRS following up on this question? if they do, to what extent do they identify to insurance companies those plan sponsors who checked off Yes?

Are you saying you simply file the plan late and not submit to DFVC? If so, which boxes if any do you mark off?

4/30 plan year and 5558 extension was not sent in to extend past 11/30 (due to change in admin & internal confusion on responsibility). So now 5500 is late. They want to file as soon as possible and ask for fee waiver. So the following questions, which are more out of general curiosity as a result of this circumstance: Who do they contact to request late penalty waiver? Does checking DFVC checkbox affect eligibility to get a fee waiver? ie would you recommend they do or don't check off the box? Is there a deadline for paying the DFVC fee?

Association sponsoring fully insured medical plan for its member companies is terminating the plan & each company will have its own plan starting 1/1/14. Association failed to file 12/31/11 and 12/31/12 5500.To what extent should they file under dfvc and could they risk penalty if not? They are balking at $4000 for a plan no longer existing. thoughts?

The 5500 instructions for Schedule A indicate that individual policies of the same carrier may be grouped as a unit and filed under one Schedule A. My question is - does this refer to individual as in one person policies? or if an employer has different sets of employees under different plans with the same medical carrier, for instance, but with different id numbers, can those policies be grouped on one Schedule A, or better off listed separately? PS wouldnt it be swell to have a 5500 message board section under Health & Welfare Plan separate from the other 5500 section?

Situation: Current Plan Sponsor does not allow expenses after 12/31. Not interested in new $500 carryover law, but with this new ruling, will now consider extended spending period (instead of $500 carryover) effective only with 2014 plan year because of perceived extra admin with $500 carryover rule, especially applying it to 2013. I'm not seeing what the extra admin is for current or future years.

ok thanks, just thought i'd ask, trying to cut costs by not asking the actuary, but i see will have to ask the professional.

Pardon my lack of knowledge on the topic please. Without using pension software, is there a basic excel formula to come up with a rough estimate of the annual cost of a participant, by plugging in say projected retirement benefit, years to retirement, interest rate or other relevant parameters?

That is my working best solution, and was hoping someone else might think so.

If someone might refer me to someone who might be able to assist me with this question, I would greatly appreciate it.

I know this question is 2 years old, but I'd also like to know the answer. To me, I don't think there are guidelines for this, and the % experienced could certainly be much higher. I'm guessing it is that % that is used as a guideline for whether to provide the experienced or non-experienced information, and that only one or the other is provided, but I don't know. Another question I have is - what if the policy provides multiple types of benefits, and it turns out that pricing for one of the benefits is based on experienced-rating and for another benefit non-experienced. Would there be info provided for both sections of the Schedule A? Two Schedule A's for the same group?

Ever seen both items 9 and 10 filled out on the same 5500 and if so, any guidance on being allowed to do that? I know there is next to no guidance in the formal instructions. Apparently insurer uses one methodology on Health and Dental and the other on Vision, and thereby has no separate records of claims paid on Vision.

so to confirm, this new formula can be applied (somewhat retroactively) to current cal plan year 2013?

yes.