RatherBeGolfing

Well, that isn't quite how preemption works. Think of it more like if ERISA requires something to be done, it would most likely preempt a state law to the contrary. But every provision in a plan document is not an ERISA requirement. Loans have to be repaid, but ERISA does not require that the loan be repaid by payroll deduction. Drafting a plan document requiring that the loan be repaid by payroll deduction does not preempt state labor law, it just means that it is the only option provided to the participant to repay the loan, and that the participant will default on the loan if payroll deduction is stopped.

Very interesting. I'm not sure what makes a "former employee" eligible for an employer sponsored plan but obviously it can be done. I'm assuming it would need to be a balance in excess of the force-out limit or the plan would have to roll it right back out

So at a birdseye view, it looks like the senate version had pass through at 25% but excludes companies providing professional service. That excludes most of my pass through clients from the QP/pass through dilemma.

I could see where a former employee who is still a participant could be able to roll in, but a former employee who is no longer a participant?

I don't think this referred to the hardship rules per se. Rather, there has been some informal guidance (at least I haven't seen actual guidance address it) in Q&As regarding timing issues and hardships. One such question has been what happens when a hardship is granted based on certain circumstances and those circumstances change. The classic example is a hardship for the purchase of a home and then the purchase falls through for whatever reason. Some people questioned whether the change in circumstances requires repayment of the hardship distribution because the hardship no longer exists. The IRS response has been that the plan could not accept repayment of a hardship even if it wanted to, because the hardship was valid at the time of distribution and there simply are no procedures that would allow the money to return to the plan. If we look at the present question using the same logic, what rule or procedure would allow a plan to accept assets from a person who is neither employee nor participant (assuming the distribution was proper when implemented. Even if there was an incentive to take the assets back, I don't see how it would be permissible. Like you said, that should be the end of the story. But what happens if the recipient of the rollover refuses to accept the assets and the distribution goes "stale"? Is the participants account restored? Any RKs want to chime in?

Could that be paychex perhaps?

I have most of my files in pdf format, and I won't charge for a simple email with attachments. My service agreement is set up to only charge for services actually performed, so the only fees upon termination of services would be for services performed but not yet billed and any services necessary for the transfer to the other TPA.

And you can still recover against a non-fiduciary service provider who is at fault. The good ones will own their mistakes and the bad ones, like you say, aren't in business long. But then again, it wasn't too long ago a "fiduciary" service provider had their offices raided and their files seized as part of a fraud and embezzlement case...

This 100%.

If the plan allowed 2 loans, a new loan could be issued for $20k You have plenty of room on the 50% of balance side so your issue is going to be the $50k limit. With highest outstanding loan in last 12 months of $30k, you could do a new loan for $20k

Ok, not much you can do at that point.

Is there a possibility to refinance the loan?

The most s/he can borrow is $20k due to $50k/12 month limit. If s/he has $20k to repay the current loan, the new loan would simply replace $20k used to repay the old loan.

I have seen plenty of #1 and #2. I see #3 more as a fall back when they don't get any new elections with #1. They would basically move the cash over and default it into TD funds as the DIA. I personally don't care for mapping (#2), I prefer that the adviser put the work in and come up with the best and most appropriate lineup on the new platform rather than trying to squeeze the old platform into the new platform. Now throw in the twist of converting SDBAs and you can have even more "fun"...

They added line 4c to the 2017 forms for plan name changes

DFVC is most likely still an option. The $15,000 proposed penalty letter is their way of funneling people to the DFVC. They really never let you off the hook anymore though, I had a case where the clients CPA/TPA had all the documents signed and ready to file a final 5500 when he suddenly died. The client didn't even find out he was dead until they tried to get an explanation for the penalty notice. The IRS just said the DFVC is there for a reason, pick your poison of the $750 user fee or the proposed penalty.

I'm not sure what would make the AA an "optional" document to provide... Does it somehow not relate to the establishment or operation of the plan? ERISA §104(b)(4)

For a CG it would be Section 1563 attribution which would be limited to/from an adult child.

Well if it is a successor plan you really want it to be a transfer not a distribution. I know the end result is that the assets end up in the same place but it should be transferred not rolled over. As for potential issues, if it is transferred over as a successor plan, the assets (should) retain their source characteristics like withdrawal restrictions on deferrals, right? But a rolled over amount has already been "distributed" from its original plan and are now rollover assets that do not carry the same restrictions. If assets that "roll over" incorrectly are then distributed before age 59 1/2, you have a problem. At least that is how I am looking at it.

I assume you are talking about the $250,000 limit? If so, that is the combined value so it would mean you have to file for both if the combined assets exceed $250,000. From the 5500-EZ instructions (my emphasis) Talk to Vanguard, they will have required paperwork to terminate the plan. You also need to file a final Form 5500-EZ and Forms 1096/1099/945 depending on how you distribute the assets (Make sure to ask Vanguard if they will do this for you) Just as an FYI, Vanguard also has a brokerage option that may work for you, I have some clients who love them. I'm not sure if they can be used as part of their one participant plans though. I hope that helps.

Unfortunately, this is almost entirely cost related. Mega companies like ADP and others offer "low cost" plans staffed by people with zero experience and education in qualified plans. What you are facing is not an uncommon result. When you race to the bottom on fees, you end up at the bottom for quality.

Ok. Since it is 401(k) only, your ADP test will probably limit the amount of deferrals your owner can make. If the owners deferrals are going to be restricted anyways, how about restricting the owners deferrals in the document to something like $100? Tthis would trigger catch-up at $101. The owner could defer the full $6100, with only $100 subject to ADP testing. This also works in your favor for top heavy because catch-up contributions are not included when you determine highest contribution rate for the top heavy minimum (but it is included when calculating 60% for TH determination). So even if you had to make a TH contribution, it would be really small because it is determined only using the $100.

I very rarely suggest calling the DOL because it is almost always avoidable , but this may be one of those instances where it is appropriate. The way they are operating the plan effectively restricts catch-up contributions to highly compensated participants who can hit the $18,000 limit while still restricted to 15% of pay per payroll. That is just wrong and needs to be fixed. If you are getting nowhere with them, call the DOL. When they get a participant complaint, they have to look into it. When the DOL comes knocking, things like this will get fixed real quick.

But if they do allow catch-up deferrals, catch-up should kick in at the 15% maximum as well as the $18,000 limit.

Don't forget "encouraging" plan sponsors to make house calls in order to locate missing participants, that is one of my new favorites