Jim Norman

Ignore it.

With that kind of money at stake, your friend should hire an ERISA attorney and discuss his options under attorney-client privilege.

Thank you Dave. It is hardly "arrogance" on your part merely because you want to keep your message board from being carpet bombed with multiple postings of nearly identical articles across forums, repeated over and over again. Jim

As others suggest, you're not going to move the mountain, so either the client lives with it or leaves MSSB. Should I stay or should I go now? Should I stay or should I go now? If I go there will be trouble And if I stay it will be double So come on and let me know -The Clash

If they are otherwise eligible for the transition period, sure. This was another takeaway from that session, that a plan amendment could blow the transition eligibility even if it is not substantially changing coverage. The code conditions eligibility on not substantially changing coverage or other requirements specified by treasury. The regs mention changes in the plan or changes in coverage.

At the LABC two weeks ago at the M&A session by Ilene Ferenczy and Rhonda Migdail (of IRS), this came up. Both agreed that SH and non-SH (k) plans cannot be merged mid-plan year.

I began to take over a plan once where the bank administering it had done just this. I pointed out the reg quoted above that says the vested percentage is what is protected, not the vested account balance. Employer decided to stay with the bank and keep the bifurcated vesting.

He retired a couple of years ago. Living in Colorado when I last spoke to him.

Thanks for the kind words. Uh oh, did I miss a message from you Bill? I'll give you a call.

Penchecks has formed Penchecks Trust Company of America, (PTCA), a wholly owned subsidiary of Penchecks, Inc., chartered by the state of South Dakota. As of Monday, 11/15/10, PTCA has adopted its new IRA document. New IRAs being established through Penchecks will now be held by PTCA as the actual custodian. So you can tell them PTCA if you want to be specific. Full disclosure, I am a shareholder in Penchecks and director of both Penchecks and PTCA. Jim

My thoughts and prayers are with you and your family, Dave. Glad her passing was peaceful, but it is still difficult. Jim

What are people experiencing? Have a couple that are at 6 months now with no response.

Well, any agreement worth the paper it's printed on typically says something like "this agreement may be terminated by either party by written notice XXX days...." or such. But even if it doesn't, presumably the former client has breached the agreement by not providing required data (or paying you?). So your firing them is nothing more than acknowledging what is already reality. Just tell 'em since you haven't heard from them or received any of the info necessary to administer their plan, you're done.

What does your service agreement or engagement letter say about terminating the agreement. You should follow that. We tell 'em they can no longer rely on our document advisory letter, when our services stop, that they should engage another firm to assist them asap and there are substantial IRS and/or DOL penalties for failure to properly operate and maintain the plan. Also tell them our fees for obtaining copies of documents from their files and our file retention policy. We don't wait a "couple of plan years".

The FIAT Barchetta would have fit the bill, not made anymore, never imported to the US, but there's talk of a spider version of the FIAT 500 which would be FWD, assuming this whole Chrysler/FIAT thing works out. Barchetta:

Even though the plan is pooled, the loan can be treated as a segregated account fbo the specific participant. This is DOL's preferred approach. Need to see what the plan document says, it should address this.

It survived a cloture vote in the Senate yesterday and is expected to pass in the Senate this week. House is expected to pass it next week.

If the profit sharing document uses the "each participant is a separate group" allocation language, then the company could limit the PS contributions to the owners to keep the overall employer contribution to 6%.

Probably not, need to read the plan document. Of course the owners could reduce their deferrals to reduce their match. As an aside, if the match is the basic SH match (100% on the first 3% and 50% on the next 2%), how is the match contribution exceeding 6%? Wouldn't it be limited to 4%?

I got some itching powder I can lend you. Jim

Look into amending the plan to retroactively add a pre-retirement death benefit of up to 100x the monthly benefit. May or may not help depending on the numbers. Of course if there is no sponsoring entity there are other problems.

Have to follow the terms of the plan regarding the allocation of contribution to the group. Also, even if the plan had each participant in a separate group, beware of the IRS deemed CODA issue.

I heard that ASPPA was told there would be no automatic extension of the 7/31 deadline and no extension of the 10/15 deadline. No worries on 7/31, we've got all our 5558s out. But I sense disaster at 10/15. On 5500s filed, we are off 30% YTD from last year. Combination of taking longer to prepare, clients not doing their part, and don't even get me started on Schedule SB! And of course the EFAST website will probably meltdown in early October. I've been doing this 30 years, this is the first time I really think we won't get em all by 10/15.

You are correct it does not absolve the employer of all fiduciary liability. Also, as long as regulation section 1.413-2(a)(3)(iv) is on the books, a multiple employer plan is a dangerous place to be. This reg says that a qualification failure by any one employer results in disqualification of the entire plan for all employers. Such a failure can arise so easily as to make it almost a certainty. A married daughter employee of a business owner is not identified as a Highly Compensated Employee, so the ADP test is incorrect. An employer leaves the plan without making a required top heavy minimum contribution, an adopting employer previously had a top heavy plan that is overlooked in determining top heavy status, etc. Proceed with caution.

Not restricted to PPA. Indeed it's not. "It is the invariable habit of bureaucracies, at all times and everywhere, to assume...that every citizen is a criminal. Their one apparent purpose, pursued with a relentless and furious diligence, is to convert the assumption into a fact. " - H. L. Mencken