RatherBeGolfing

While my Latin is limited, I have always found it surprisingly useful.

Even worse, they will read (and read into) anything they can get their hands on. For example, John Hancock's annual 404a-5 disclosure includes default language regarding what adjustments are made to the market value formula in their guaranteed interest accounts when there is a plan discontinuance, in-service, withdrawal, pre-retirement withdrawal, etc. I have a plan that does not allow in-service withdrawals, and a participant was repeatedly told under what circumstances she could have a distribution. She turns out to be one of the 0.0001 % of participants who actually read the 404a-5 disclosure and zero's in on the default language from JH regarding their guaranteed income accounts. From this she extrapolates that since the disclosure mentions in-service and pre-retirement withdrawals, that must mean that she has a right to them and that we (the sponsor, the PA, and the TPA) are illegally keeping her from accessing money that she entitled to.

Well I limited my response to the distribution options as I'm not convinced that it is a DRO qualification issue. That said, even with a QDRO, they can't refuse to submit the plans required paperwork for a distribution. The QDRO is how we get around the anti-alienation clause, by "creating" a right to receive a distribution of a participants benefits in a plan. So you could have a valid QDRO, but still have whatever forms, notices, and procedures you require for the actual distribution. Edit: I agree that the attorney can't demand that nothing is sent to or required from the AP, but I also don't see that as a DRO qualification issue unless they included in the actual DRO (which seems unlikely)

What is the actual wording in the plan document? Depending on how it is written, you could reasonably interpret that as the PLAN cannot refuse to honor an election by the AP that would have been available to the participant (or honor one that is not available to the participant) It is not uncommon to see a QDRO where the manner of distribution has already been "determined".

You may have to do some digging (or key word searching ) to find it. In my document, it is located in the section that details the authority and responsibility of the Plan Administrator.

I use FTW for documents, 5500/1099, and admin. I used to use Relius for everything. To me it comes down to two things, cost and need. On cost, FTW wins hands down. Do you need a lot of flexibility? Relius, while sometimes tedious to work with because of all the settings and options, is a lot more detailed than FTW (and any other system I have looked at). You have to know the system pretty well to use all the bells and whistles, but if you do, you can make it do pretty much anything you want. At least this was my experience 5+ years ago. I am happy with FTW. It does what I need it to do 99% of the time. The other 1% can be a pain and requires some creativity, but so far I haven't come across a problem I couldn't solve. Since FTW is less detailed/quirky, it is also easier to learn and use on the more basic and moderate levels. The one thing I really miss is being able to make the reports just the way I want them, like you can with Relius. With FTW you are pretty much stuck with their formatting options (although they are working on giving us more options to customize). If you really need to change the look of the reports, you can customize it on the user end in Word, Excel or Acrobat, but you need to be creative and it helps if you have a good understanding of macros.

Happy to help

We don't exclude severance pay simply because it is paid after separation. In fact, we can include post-severance pay if it would have paid to the employee if s/he continued to work. We exclude severance pay because it is not compensation for services rendered, it is compensation for terminating the employment agreement. As you have described the facts, you have a severance agreement which includes the promise of 26 installment payments. Were the 26 payments for services rendered? Would the 26 payments have been made had the employee not agreed to sever employment? I don't think the fact that the employee was re-hired matters here.

When you try to convince them to find another solution and / or refuse to take part in this illegal act, do so in writing.

What vendor are you using?

I have an attorney client who reads every page of every document I send him. During the EGTRRA restatement, I fielded over 20 questions on the language and context of certain sentences of the BPD. And this is for a very basic SH 401(k) plan.

Our BPD is 83 pages AA for a 401(k) is 38 pages SPD is 15 pages That gets us to 136. Depending on the clients needs (loan policy, forms, etc.) There are an additional 10-30 pages. We use Ft William's "prototype formatted" VS document.

PTIN System to reopen today PTINs issued without charge for now.

You are missing a variable. What is the rate of the match? could be 100% , 50% or something different.

Probably not a DOL issue. I believe the "port" is basically where your server meets the secure FTW server. I would expect that to be a temporary issue but I will be on the look out for it as well.

Thanks. Its funny how these things only happen to some users.

I know some people who have had the issue in the past but I seem to be special at the moment lol. We use FTW for documents, admin and 5500/1099

First of all big thanks to Dave for adding a FTW user group! I am having a small issue in the 5500 module. Every attachment is upside down no matter what the actual orientation is. Is anyone else having this problem? I spoke to support last week and so far the only work around that seems to be effective is to "print to .pdf" from the .pdf that shows upside down. Basically a copy of a copy to make it work at the moment.

Interesting. That is probably effective though. Clients don't care too much if their provider has to pay a fine because they assume the provider has deep pockets. But fine the providers clients and the provider has a very real incentive to change or improve or whatever the DOL thinks is appropriate.

We are very similar. We don't sell product but for some clients we do have minor revenue sharing that we credit back to the client on a dollar for dollar approach.. We satisfy 408b-2 anyway for transparency. Our disclosure is simple enough for for most people to understand.

With some recent threads regarding the fiduciary rule (is X a fiduciary under the new rule?), I wanted to revisit how people are handling their 408b-2 notices. Is the fact that the fiduciary rule is now in effect changing your approach to your 408b-2 disclosures (or lack of 408b-2 disclosures)? Or do you do 408b-2 disclosures for all clients regardless of covered service provider status?

It is not so much that the calculator cannot be used if you don't file VFCP, but the calculations MAY be rejected if examined by the DOL. They may also be accepted. It is no guarantee either way. If you want to be certain that your results are acceptable using the calculator, do a VFCP filing. Otherwise, roll the dice. If you decide to roll the dice, make sure you inform your client of the risk. I use the calculator about 90% of the time, but I also file VFCP 90% of the time. There are times when other methods of calculations result in a better result for the client and is worth the time and effort to do get there.

I agree with Bird. Payments made within the cure period are essentially considered paid when due. I have heard the IRS argue both in favor and against this view in informal settings like Q&As and similar forums, but I think it is a reasonable position to take.

The devil is in the details. At least one of the points in the letter was discussed at the ASPPA Annual IRS Q&A last year where the ASPPA panel felt the change did not fall under the 4 prohibited amendments and the IRS disagreed. Asking for clarity and / or different wording is important. As for controversy, I think they have all they need with the Fiduciary rule and MEPs

Is the ROBS itself not an investment? Is the ROBS not expected to pay off as an investment in your franchise or business? If it isn't, how can we justify putting investable plan assets at risk?