Flyboyjohn

My understanding was if the current asset custodian (Merrill Lynch in this case) was unwilling to serve as a QTA (which I'm learning is the position of many/most major investment institutions)the assets could be transferred to a different institution (has to be qualified to hold IRAs). I've learned that Penchecks may have offer QTA services but haven't confirmed yet.

Need to find a Qualified Termination Administrator for an abandoned plan in the Norfolk, Virginia area, any recommendations appreciated.

Yes, each Participating Employer should have executed a new Participation Agreement. Which begs the question did they all sign the prior EGTRRA document? While no one "has" to file under VCP they certainly should, it's ridiculously cheap for a late amender only a couple of months late.

Is this a fair statement of the question:Is it illegal for an employer to punish/discriminate against an employee who refuses to enroll in and make a contribution towards the premium for a "benefit" that the employee doesn't want? I believe it is. What if the employee has a sincerely held religious objection to health insurance in general or contraception coverage specifically? What if the employee would prefer to have Medicare as their primary coverage? In states I'm familiar with it's illegal to withhold $$ from an employee's pay involuntarily except under legal compulsion. Since "minimum participation" requirements are no longer legal and in the small group environment the insurer's age banded, community rated premiums are available to all comers I also don't understand how the insurer is saying your client isn't meeting underwriting requirements. IMHO bad idea, don't do it.

In the context of forcing EEs to take coverage that would be inferior or inadequate for their needs and preventing them from taking advantage of Premium Tax Credits and Cost Sharing Reductions I would look at ACA section 1558 and possibly 1557 along with ERISA 510.

Agree with jpod except to also add that EEs have to be given the option to waive the ER coverage even if it's "free".

Good example of why to always file welfare 5500s on the contract year basis (unless it's a wrap and has differing underlying contract years). Since you've been reporting Sch A info for the contract years ending in the calendar year I would file the 2015 5500 as a final and report the Sch A info for both the contract year ended 2/28/15 and the short contract year ended 12/31/15.

Reminds me of a scheme being promoted to large (ALE) employers: Auto-enroll all EEs in a "skinny" plan (not minimum value, about $50/month premium) Since EEs are enrolled in an employer plan they can't get Marketplace subsidies so no employer penalties. Also, plan qualifies as MEC so EEs won't be subject to the individual penalty. However, there is guidance that while auto-enrollment is OK the EE must be given an option to waive the coverage (and therefore qualify for subsidies since plan does not provide minimum value). Employer's hope is that EEs will be happy to be avoiding individual penalty and won't waive.

The code uses the term "retires" vs. the more familiar (to us) "separation from service", wondering if there's any practical difference

There doesn't seem to be a definition of what constitutes "retirement" for purposes of the 401(a)(9)© delay in RMDs until the April 1st of the calendar year following the calendar year in which the employee retires. Would working (and being paid) for 1 or 2 hours a week be sufficient to support a delay in RMDs? Would seem to be an area ripe for creative tax planning (almost said abuse). I'm aware the delay does not apply to 5% owners. Thanks

Preparing TRA'86 and GUST "late amender" documents. What were the deadlines for the TRA'86 and GUST restatements? And what would be the most logical entry in the "effective date of restatement" box on each Adoption Agreement? Many thanks.

I would take the position it's not a non-deductible penalty in the sense of a punishment for doing something wrong. I would view it as a deductible higher premium that takes into account the fact that the insured did not pay into the risk pool when they were younger/healthier.

They just recently responded to the online "Data Match Questionnaire" from the CMS Benefits Coordination and Recovery Center so outcome uncertain but threat is CMS will make them reimburse all the claims Medicare paid.

Sharing a sad story involving a local church in case it might help your clients avoid the "trap". Its generally understood that the Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP)rules don't apply to small employers under 20 employees. Small church (5 employees) thought they were exempt from MSP and reimbursed age 65 employee for premiums for Medicare Part B and D and Medicare Supplement. Turns out their group health plan is a self-funded multiple-employer plan sponsored by the national church and they've now learned that since the plan covers at least 1 employer who has over 20 employees they are not considered a small employer exempt from MSP. Lesson learned: small employers participating in a multiple-employer health plan are very likely subject to MSP.

Assuming the short plan year is prospective (and not trying to close a year already in progress)shouldn't be a problem to amend the plan to specify the pro-rated amounts for the upcoming short year.

I'm in the camp of "Another believes the self-funding adjustment is wholly the employer’s property, and nothing should be allocated to participants or employees." In a self-funded plan paid from general assets with no trust and accordingly no "plan assets" the participants have no entitlement to any profit or so-called rebate just like they wouldn't have any liability for any losses or excess claims.

Several clients with late deposits on 2015 Forms 5500 have received a letter from DOL inviting them to make a VFCP filing (even offering to provide personal assistance in completing the application). In the old days we used to tell them we'd corrected the PT and filed the 5330 and they left us alone. Has anything changed and is DOL now going to initiate an investigation and/or assess the 20% penalty if we don't go thru VFCP?

You mention that the new plan is 006, might the IRS be asking about a 2013 return for plan 005?

Only if they were "full-time" for the month of January. If you're using the monthly measurement method it'll hinge on whether they worked 130 hours. If you're using the look back measurement method and January is part of the stability period then you determine whether they were deemed to be full-time for the stability period.

Your "P.S." seems to provide a great solution. Assuming they won't exceed the deduction/contribution limit go back and amend the employer's 2014 tax return to claim the early 2015 contributions as "for" 2014 and you're done. We don't really care how Putnam "coded" the contributions.

I vote for Option 1. Look at the 2010 5500 and see how the assets from 002 were reflected as coming into 001.Were the 002 assets there for the entire year and subject to the 2010 audit? Yes, consider filing a delinquent final 5500 for 002 for 2010 under DFVC but sponsor will likely decide not to file if it requires the expense of a short period audit. If IRS hasn't picked up on the 002 delinquency by now chances are they never will and if they dothey'll likely offer DFVC as an out anyway. Yes, this is how TIAA used to set up 403b plans and hopefully they've changed to the 1 plan approach for new business.

If it's a self-insured plan funded through a Trust (very rare) the amount should be on Schedule H. If it's a fully insured plan or self-insured but paid from General Assets it won't be on the 5500.

Assuming the investment house is a bank or insurance company the auditor wants to do a "limited scope audit" based on information certified by the investment house (not your breakdown). So it makes sense they would want to include all the "certified" assets and if the plan sponsor is ready to now admit they only have 1 "plan" for reporting purposes then follow the auditor's suggestion. Alternatively, you might see if they'd be willing to do a "full-scope" (more expensive) audit of just plan 002.

The answer depends on the terms of your employer-sponsored group health plan. I'll bet you don't have a health plan document so the closest substitute will be the contract with your health insurer, check to see if it limits mid-year enrollments to "special enrollment periods" and if so they should be well defined. Of course, as QDROphile mentioned, if the newly enrolling employee wants to have their portion of the premium deducted from their pay pre-tax they have to meet the "change in family status" rules found in your cafeteria plan document.

Terminating custodial account (mutual fund) 403(b) and offering new 401(k)(realize merger not possible). Same custodian in each plan. Current 403(b) participants will be offered cash-out, rollover to IRA or rollover to new 401(k). For participants NOT making an affirmative election sponsor wants to make the default a rollover to the 401(k). Also, since the same funds will be available in the 401(k) sponsor wants the default investment election to be the same elections the participant had made in the 403(b). Assuming all appropriate disclosures are made are there any problems with this approach?