RatherBeGolfing

The quoted section is only one of the requirements. You still need to be a group or association with a commonality of interest. For example, location could be a commonality of interest, so a local chamber of commerce could sponsor a MEP under the proposed regs. Trade/industry/profession is commonality of interest, so an association like ASPPA could sponsor a MEP under the proposed regs. The concept of Pooled Employer Plans where all you need is one employer sponsoring the MEP and agreeing to be the Pooled Plan Provider is not considered in the proposed regs since the proposed regs have to follow existing legislation. The are basically just expanding the concept of commonality of interest. Since the TPA is not a group or association of employers, its a non starter under the proposed regs.

No. The TPA would not be a bona fide "group or association of employers". The proposed reg does not cover open MEPs or PEPs

Many of my pooled plans treat loans as an pooled investment rather than a directed investment. Its certainly not rare, but overall it is less common.

If they dont like it, then no loans from the plan. Now that would be heaven... Less than prime +1 would probably be an issue on audit. At least they would would ask you to justify the rate, and "the client wanted it" wont cut it. *EDIT loans not land...

Most AAs can accommodate "other" exclusions Plan A excludes M-Z Plan B excludes A-L You can split any way that is reasonable, but this way has less opportunity for participants moving from plan to plan.

Tom is correct. It's an EZ.

I don't think its idyllic to know your limitations and stay within them. Rather than getting into something that is beyond your scope (and a potential minefield for both you and the client), why not play to your strengths and find a solution that you know you can handle and handle well? I seriously doubt that the RK savings of a 2 plan MEP will be so significant that other solutions can't be considered. Take Larry's example of splitting the plan to avoid audits for example. If additional cost is a concern because you are creating another plan, you can probably drop your fees to stay competitive (after all, the two plans are mirrors of each other).

Honest question, if you can't answer basic MEP questions, should you even consider creating a MEP situation for this client?

My understanding is that assessed IRS penalties can still be abated using DFVCP. For an EZ, you are ineligible for the EZ late filer penalty relief program once the IRS has assessed/charged a penalty (CP 283). While you are ineligible for the penalty relief program, you can still request relief for reasonable cause, like we would do before the program.

Yep, I know a very successful TPA firm where the consultants "workload" would seem ridiculous by plan numbers, but all the small steps are handled by support staff so that the consultants are more in a review and finalize position

Great!

I agree with Belgarath, the number of plans you do is close to meaningless without context. I usually do somewhere around 50 plans, but admin is probably about 50% of my responsibilities. I also have outside obligations like committees, government affairs, etc. that takes up some of my office time. Obviously, some plans take a lot more time than others. Some plans I could do 4 in one day, others will take weeks due to the complexity and corrections. I have TPA friends who are pretty streamlined, where there are not that many differences from plan to plan, and the case load for their folks are north of 100 plans. The only number that matters is how many plans you can do at a reasonable pace with a minimal tolerance for error. If someone can handle 120 plans with limited errors without working them to a point of burning out, then 120 might be reasonable if justified by compensation.

True. But also keep in mind that the class exemption for the penalty tax is limited to one transaction every three years, so its not something you can use all the time or even possibly even for multiple payrolls in the same year. If OPs two transactions are close together and the same circumstances caused them both to be late, they could be considered one transaction, but otherwise only one would qualify.

Right, but they don't start by assessing a penalty, they send a notice with a proposed penalty which gives you plenty of time to use the program.

Different levels of compensation and or different allocations of partner expenses?

You wouldn't file VCP for a late deferral, but you would (or should) file VFCP

Voluntary Fiduciary Correction Program (VFCP) is a DOL self correction program for certain fiduciary violations: Delinquent Participant Contributions and Participant Loan Repayments to Pension Plans Delinquent Participant Contributions to Insured Welfare Plans Delinquent Participant Contributions to Welfare Plan Trusts Fair Market Interest Rate Loans to Parties in Interest Below Market Interest Rate Loans to Parties in Interest Below Market Interest Rate Loans to Non-Parties in Interest Below Market Interest Rate Loans Due to Delay in Perfecting Security Interest Participant Loans Failing to Comply with Plan Provisions for Amount, Duration, or Level Amortization Defaulted Participant Loans Purchase of Assets by Plans from Parties in Interest Sale of Assets by Plans to Parties in Interest Sale and Leaseback of Property to Sponsoring Employers Purchase of Assets from Non-Parties in Interest at More Than Fair Market Value Sale of Assets to Non-Parties in Interest at Less Than Fair Market Value Holding of an Illiquid Asset Previously Purchased by Plan Benefit Payments Based on Improper Valuation of Plan Assets Payment of Duplicate, Excessive, or Unnecessary Compensation Improper Payment of Expenses by Plan Payment of Dual Compensation to Plan Fiduciaries Voluntary Correction Program (VCP) is part of the IRS Employee Plans Compliance Resolution System (EPCRS) for correcting plan errors such as Maintaining a valid, up-to-date plan document. Following the terms of the plan document while operating the plan. Complying with federal tax law requirements while operating the plan.

In the case where it goes from an EZ to a first SF, no annual return has been filed. In the case where it goes from an SF to EZ, its not a final return because future returns may still be filed.

Absolutely. When in doubt, just ask their documents team. They know their stuff and they are very fast to respond.

Its both! One of the first questions I asked them when interviewing new vendors years ago ?

wasn't that what Kevin said? ?

I agree with your concern. The sponsor has failed to implement a deferral election. Having an inadequate payroll system does not excuse the sponsor from its responsibilities. Corrections are needed both for the missed deferrals and associated match contributions.

I know some people on here will argue that it is a mistake of fact, with at least informal guidance saying it could be considered a mathematical error. I have seen it posted here before. I agree with you though, a change in circumstances is not a mathematical or clerical error to me.

It goes to John Q.

Honestly, this is going to be different for everyone depending on a ton of different factors. How much practical experience you have ,do you easily retain retain information, etc. I put the CPC on the back burner because I really don't need it, but I did a couple of the modules back to back with no problem. Its open book so the answers are all there if you are comfortable with on the fly research. If not, the (non helpful) answer is prepare in advance as much as you need to feel comfortable sitting down for the module. The proctored exam is a different animal. You not only need to know what you are doing, you also need to be able to go through the full process in order to get full credit. I like the one chapter a week approach, but I would probably double it to two weeks to allow enough detail per chapter. Everyone's study habits and learning process is different, but one technique I used in law school was "cumulative review". Week 1-2 Study and outline Ch 1 Week 3-4 Study and outline Ch 2, plus thorough review of Ch 1 outline Week 5-6 Study and Outline Ch 3, plus thorough review of Ch 1 & Ch 2 outlines and so on Pay close attention to the syllabus. Know the learning objectives and tailor your studies to exam weighting. Also, practice exams are your best friend. It doesn't matter how well you know the material if you don't know how to answer the questions.