RatherBeGolfing

The provider is really irrelevant. It's a plan asset, and a plan problem. How much of an issue depends on the details. When was the original payment made, was there notice and consent or was it a forceout, were there taxs withheld, was it reported on a 5500, 1099, 945, 8955, etc... It should be deposited to the trust, he participant should be default enrolled, and payment process should start over (and other steps as necessary). If participant does not receive your payment, go to your missing participant procedures. I do not think that sending the check to the sponsor is reasonable as it should be handled on a plan level.

The stale check is a plan asset, I don't see how you can reject it. I would request that the prior provider hand over whatever information I need to take care of the assets though. I have had this happen before because some investment platforms have more than one step in a distribution. Basically the provider takes the amount from the plans account, and makes the payment from a provider account. As far as the plan can see, the payment "cleared" when removed from the plan account. On the provider side, the payment from their account goes stale so the amount remains in that account rather than being returned to the plan account. This is one of the issues in the missing participant debate. It gets even more fun when you add overlapping plan years and withholding...

I agree, and we also fully reconcile the assets. I guess my issue is more that I don't think you can properly administer a pooled plan without asset reconciliation so noncompliance of the schedule of assets requirement is part of a bigger problem.

The pertinent language from Section 508 is: So its not whether a participant has any rights to a specific asset, it is whether the assets of the individual account has been allocated to an investment. Since the investments are pooled, a pro rata share of each account has been allocated to each investment, and the value of each investment must be disclosed. At least this is the most common interpretation.

Ok I see the confusion. I think the Portman-Cardin bill is actually an new bill in addition to RESA rather than a modified version. Most of the calls I have been on discuss RESA separate from the Portman-cardin bill. RESA pretty much mirror SECURE and the SH stuff is in Section 104 I think. My understanding is that the expectation is to pass RESA with some of Portman-Cardin, and then try to pass some additional parts of Portman-Cardin on it's own down the road.

I don't have it in front of me, but I believe it is Section 103. It does not explicitly eliminate the safe harbor notice, but the it is not included as a requirement. The committee report explained that it was no longer a requirement, but that you are still required to give a participant reasonable opportunity to make an election. I'm pretty sure that was current as of 5/21/19, can you link to what you read?

My understanding is that Participant would indicate on the 12/31/2019 return that it has been repaid to another plan or IRA, so the 1099-R issued by the plan is not counted as compensation for 2019. The plan still issues the 1099-R, it is not involved with how it is accounted for on the participants return.

We have a lot of pooled plans and we provide a list of Assets & Liabilities with the SAR & benefit statements. From what I have seen, most practitioners provide a similar A&L. Its either a list of assets and liabilities with amounts at the end of the year, or a list with amounts at the beginning and end of the year. Not that complicated.

Florida TPA here. We DO address this with our clients, as do several of our "friendly competitors". We do not require that they pay the doc stamp, but we make them aware of it and explain the state requirement. The state of Florida has been very clear that 401(k) loans are included, but it really isn't enforced at all. I haven't heard of them actually going after anyone for not having the doc stamps on loans. My guess is that they will collect from people who pay it rather than actually going after the "uncollected tax" and getting into the preemption issue (they are well aware that it is ignored). I know plenty of industry experts who dismiss the doc stamp requirement as unenforceable should Florida decide to go after all the plans with loans that have the required Florida connection. We have clients who pay the doc stamp tax, not many, but some. As a practitioner her in Florida, there isn't much we can do other than address the issue and leave it up to the client to make the payment.

My document defaults to allow refinancing (subject to IRS regs) but with an option to not allow it. I haven't looked for it either but I'm sure there are some out there.

I don't think I have seen one without a cure period, but I have seen shorter cure periods than the maximum (like end of the month following). I think we all agree that the cure period allows them to catch up on the loan payments, so for that reason the terminology in the Rev Proc is irrelevant. The question for me is whether that is their only option. Under the Rev Proc, you could also reamortize the loan over the remaining payments, but I'm not sure if that is an option under most loan policies. If it is not available until after default, it gets a little trickier.

rp-19-19 New.pdf This copy should have retained the original formatting but with added page numbers in the TOC. You should also be able to click the line in the TOC and have it take you to the page in question. I'll probably make a re-formatted one with less pages and TOC that goes down 5 levels (Part 1 / Section 1 / .01 / (1) / (a)) but I'm not sure when I'll have time to do it.

I'll share it here for anyone who wants a copy. I actually prefer to do things like that myself because I'm a little particular when it comes to notes and reference material...

PenChecks sponsors it through ASPPA (and I think they do the same with NIPA). Lots of old links are dead with the new ASPPA website unfortunately. @Sammiemor you can find out more about the scholarship here https://www.asppa.org/penchecks-scholarship

I havent seen one yet. I'm making a clickable TOC with a link to each section/item, but I have family in town so probably wont finish it until next week. I'll share it here when its done. It will retain all the original pages with an added custom TOC in front

Nope. I think you are dead on, but I don't think there is anywhere in 2019-19 (that I have seen) that allows for "correcting a correction" under SCP. It may be one of those cases where the RKs have to catch up and ask clients whether they want to deem at the end of the cure period or do nothing and wait for the PA to pick the correction method. There will also be plenty of conversations with IRS (and DOL) on this that will probably help flesh out the details.

Yes. the QNEC triggers gateway even if participant does not qualify for the PS.

My guess is that the transactions are ok (recorded properly) but the reporting is horrible. The alternative is that this RK has bad or no internal controls in its system and treats forfeiture as a earnings, which I really doubt. Bad reporting isn't that uncommon though this seems to be an extreme case. I think this is one of those situations where you roll up your sleeves and really dig into what you have and try to pull it apart and piece together your own "report". There will be times when you will need to go to the former RK for clarification on a transaction, but they should be able to provide that without the need for a new report and hourly charges.

Should be treated the same as terminated and paid out participant. I believe the 5500 Preparer's Manual had a note about terminating plans where assets transferred to another plan, saying that an SAR would be prudent in that case, but no SAR requirement for a terminated plan with no assets left. I have an older copy of it somewhere but an office move can make anything disappear

A former local competitor of ours covered both employees and families 100%, at least pre-ACA. They were pretty generous with other benefits as well. Their reasoning was pretty simple, take care of your employees and they will take care of you. They had very little turnover until they got acquired by one of the national firms. I don't think any of the employees were left after two years.

Eligible without an account balance is required to receive the SAR, no question about that. What isn't 100% clear is whether a terminated participant who has been paid out before the end of the plan year is required to receive the SAR. Standard practice seems to be term with no balance at the end of the year does not get an SAR, but it sort of depends on where you draw the line. The regs just say participant and beneficiary. Many interpret that as "at the end of the year" rather than "at any point during the plan year". I know Janice Wegesin's 5500 Preparer's Manual agreed with the former but I don't think it had a direct citation. Absent anything directly on point, I think either interpretation is reasonable.

Well we have established that its legal. My comment was in regards to the "fairness" aspect

I think its distinguishable. The spouse and children are tacked on to the employees coverage under a plan chosen by the employer where rates have been established. I see that as different from "employer pays X's child's tuition". To me, the benefit is what is available to you, not what the company paid for it. So in this instance, what is offered to OP is the same as what is offered to co-worker, 100% paid coverage for employee and spouse/children if applicable. That is the benefit. That it costs the employer more for co-worker is not unfair to OP because OP is not harmed by what the employer pays for co-workers coverage. OP would also not benefit more if the employer decided to only cover employees. The employer would probably put the "cost savings" to use somewhere else or maybe it would just end up in the pocket of the owner. What is up for debate is whether its fair for co-worker to be able to cover a spouse while OP couldn't opt to cover a non-married partner. Co-worker could meet a spouse and get married on the spot and spouse would be eligible, while OP could have a 10 year partner that isn't covered. I'm not arguing that the public policy itself is fair.

I agree, it's in the eye of the beholder. If OP lost out on something because of the additional cost for co-worker, I would agree that it's at least arguably unfair. But its not like the employer would pay their widget testers more if the benefit cost went down, that excess would go elsewhere. So what the company pays for co-workers insurance does not harm OP. OP could also cover spouse and children at 100% paid by the employer, so the benefit offered is identical. Lets switch it to retirement benefits instead. OP and CW both receive contributions to a pension plan. Their benefit is identical, $1000 a month payable at age 65. OP is slightly younger than CW so the employer cost for CW is higher. Is that unfair to OP? I'll agree to disagree, but to me, employer cost and employee compensation are apples and oranges.

I think it's pretty unreasonable. The benefit is identical (100% of health ins to employee and spouse/children). The fact that OP does not have a spouse or children to cover does not make the benefit unfair. The employers cost for that benefit is an entirely separate issue.