Flyboyjohn

Having re-read the instructions many times and now noticing the specific reference to checking the "Yes" box in Part III column (a) with respect to the other transition relief items I've convinced myself that for the 50-99 and 100+ transition relief column (a) should have been checked "No" and the A and B codes in column (e) are what alert the IRS to the relief. Which makes sense since the other forms of transition relief (such as the 70% offer or non-calendar year relief) don't have an indicator code in column (e) so you have to answer Yes in column (a). FWIW.

One of the common mistakes resulting in erroneous IRS 2015 ESRP assertions is failure to properly report eligibility for 50-99 or 100+ transition relief on the 2015 Form 1094-C. I know that box C in line 22 (Section 4980H Transition Relief) needed to be checked along with either code A or B entered in line 23 column (e). What I'm questioning is whether the Yes or No box (MEC Offer Indicator) was supposed to be checked in line 23 column (a)? Page 8 of the 2015 instructions could be interpreted either way, what are others doing? Thanks

Since the only notices IRS is currently sending are with respect to 2015 you should check your 2015 Forms 1094-C and 1095-C and see if you admitted/confessed liability for penalties in the event any of your full-time employees received Marketplace subsidies during 2015. For example, do any of your Forms 1095-C have a code 1H (no offer of coverage) in line 14 and line 16 is blank (no penalty "excuse" code listed) potentially invoking the 4980H(b) penalty? And on your 1094-C did you check "No" in column (a) for any of lines 23-35 thereby potentially invoking the 4980H(a) penalty? If you didn't waive any of these white surrender flags the IRS computer system won't generate a penalty notice so rest easy.

Plan Administrator is most likely the company so if the company no longer exists then there's nobody to file the return and more importantly nobody to pay your fee to prepare it. Forget about it and move on to other paying clients.

Agree with CuseFan, DOL is mistakenly treating this like a calendar 2016 return filed 74 days after the initial 7/31/2017 deadline.

IRS "Employer Shared Responsibility Payment" (ESRP) notices for 2015 are starting to roll in (4 were referred to me for response just today). So far every one has been wrong and the employers do not in fact owe any penalty for 2015, not because the IRS made an error but because the 2015 Form 1094-C was not correctly completed by its preparer. If the 1094-C preparers made these mistakes on all their clients I anticipate we'll see a lot of erroneous notices requiring response within the short 30 day deadline.

DOL Philadelphia Region engaged in a campaign last year to "invite" late depositors reporting more than $30,000 of late deposits to file under VFCP and intimated in their educational webinars that failure to do so would increase the likelihood of a full DOL audit (not just a limited audit on the late deposit issue). So our recommendation to the plans that received the "invitation" was to make a VFCP filing as an inexpensive lesser of two evils.

At the moment of death the Revocable Living Trust became irrevocable ("Dead" Trust?) and became a new separate legal entity from the decedent/grantor of the Living Trust. You will follow the instructions of the successor Trustee as to how and when to make post-death distributions to the Trust (it now has a separate tax identification number) subject to the RMD requirements/issues discussed earlier in this thread.

Didn't the new pre-approved 403(b) plan documents address this issue (either directly or by omission)?

You hit the nail on the head, your client is "totally in need of guidance" and there's no way he should rely on comments made by anonymous commentators on this or any other blog site

If you limit the HCEs to 5% 401k and give them a 5% match the plan will pass 2017 testing using the special first year rule even if none of the NHCEs contribute a dime, but, as noted it will be top heavy triggering a 3% non-elective contribution.

Since this is a new plan why don't you elect Prior Year Testing and take advantage of the 3% deemed deferral and match rates for the NHCEs (allowing 5% deferral and 5% match rates for your HCEs)?

Honoring the participant’s request to stop payroll deduction cannot possibly be considered a violation of any provision of ERISA or the Code. Not honoring the participant’s request may very well give rise to state law cause of action. Seems like any easy decision.

My recommendation to all 401(k) and ERISA 403(b) plans is to file under VFCP if the amount of late deposits reported on the 5500 exceeds $30,000 (the threshold the DOL Philadelphia office used to "invite" filings based on 2015 5500s).

Agree with MP it's a state law issue and same result in Virginia. This is an issue where ERISA does not preempt state law because there's nothing in ERISA that requires plan loan repayments from wages or when any such voluntary withholdings can be revoked.

You'll need to look at the ERISA health plan document/SPD (if there is one) to see if he is allowed to change his selection of health plan. If his premiums are being deducted pre-tax you'll need to look at the cafeteria/125 plan document/SPD to see if he's allowed to change the amount of his pre-tax contribution.

401(k) plan document reflects the "maybe" 3% non-elective safe harbor option. Plan sponsor received an election form from TPA, selected "I will amend the plan to trigger the safe harbor for 2016", distributed the required notice to participants on a timely basis and actually made the contribution within the requisite period. Sponsor now realizes they never executed the required plan amendment. Anybody have any experience/success with a VCP filing to fix the error via a retroactive amendment?

Sounds like the EEs are common law EEs of company B and company A is simply paying them as a common paymaster or some similar accommodation. I assume company B reimburses company A for the wages and benefits paid to company B employees. Under these facts company B definitely needs to adopt the plan as an additional participating employer.

Wrapping the 5 plans together for 5500 filing purposes does not in any way "terminate" the plans, they just begin operating under the umbrella of a single plan document and reporting under a single 5500.

Ultimately it's a decision for the IQPA to make based on its analysis of the independence rule but my personal opinion as a CPA is that assisting the client in a discrete compliance/correction engagement does not impair independence. To me it's similar to preparing the 5500 which is a compliance function that I think all CPAs consider to not impair independence.

MOOP is shorthand for Maximum Out of Pocket. Answer was in IRS Publication 969 under the section dealing with what other health plans are permissible in conjunction with an HSA (referred to by IRS as "Post-deductible health FSA or HRA").

Found the answer to my question: Yes, employer can use an HRA to reimburse the spread

Employer offers HDHP with maximum family deductible and out-of-pocket of $13,100. Employer funds maximum HSA for family coverage of $6,750. Can employer also offer a Medical Expense Reimbursement Plan for the spread? Thanks.

Quasi-governmental entity/employer affiliated with a City enrolls its employees in a State retirement plan. 10 years later State Retirement System determines employer is not eligible for State plan and refunds all contributions to employer entity. Employer wants to propose a correction to IRS that would retain tax deferred "qualification" but facts don't seem to fit a VCP submission. Where do you go (who you gonna call) for such a unique situation? Please don't say "good ERISA attorney" without providing a specific name because I already meet the ERISA attorney part. Thanks

Plan made an error and now needs to fix it to retain qualification. Fix is to pay $$ out of the participant account. I'll bet that nowhere in the plan document does it permit payment of benefits to anybody but the participant (if alive) or the death beneficiary. To do otherwise is another error in failing to follow the terms of the plan.