RatherBeGolfing

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?

It is always a possibility that they will "stick it to you", but I think it is a very remote one. The whole point of EPCRS correcting mistakes. You bring it to their attention and correct it when discovered rather than having them find it on audit. A miscommunication is still an honest mistake, and it happens all the time. Hitting you with a penalty for trying to correct a mistake would discourage you from correcting in the future and instead just hope you don't get audited. I would be interested in hearing from others if they have or know of anyone getting slapped with a penalty in this situation?

Wouldn't it be a current year distribution under VCP?

IRS Loses $175 Million Class Action Lawsuit The basics: IRS made PTINs mandatory IRS justifies annual PTIN fee with 31 U.S.C. § 9701, which allows agencies to charge for a service or value provided Two CPAs sue the IRS claiming that the IRS was not allowed to require PTINs and was not allowed to charge PTIN fees Court held that the IRS can require PTINs, but that the PTIN is not a service or of value to the preparer, so the IRS cannot charge PTIN fees Furthermore, the IRS must refund PTIN fees to the class (which includes many of us)

How about option three? 1. Issue the 1099-R from the plan 2. If it is participant directed, move the plan assets to a suspense account and use to offset future contributions. If a pooled account, the assets stay in the account. 3. The payment from the employer is a "contribution" to the plan for 2016. The end result is a 1099-R from the plan, the participant received the correct amount, and since we count it as a contribution, the plan is in the same position it would have been in had a distribution and contribution taken place

I have had a hard time finding a good explanation that isn't tainted by opinion (both left and right), but from a policy standpoint it looks similar to Obamas payroll tax cuts (2011-2012?) that cut 2% from the employee side with the goal of putting more money in peoples pockets to spend and help the economy. As I recall, the 2% cut under Obama was up to the TWB rather than the 28K that is referenced here, and it was offset somehow so that SS got the 2% from somewhere else in order to not make matters worse. I would assume there is a similar provision built in to this proposal as well.

In theory, yes. Realistically, you won't end up with a different provider for each participant. I have plans that will consider the participants choice, but the PA will still make the call on whether the provider is acceptable. Those plans run between 40-100 participants and at most 10 different providers (which is still a PITA) I will also note that while I work with plans like this I do not recommend them. The are expensive, labor intensive, and full of potential issues. It is NOT an easy out for a sponsor who does not want to be troubled with 404a-5, duty to monitor, etc. If anything, the duties and responsibilities increase exponentially.

While you can allow participants to make that choice, you cannot pass on the responsibility of making sure that it is an appropriate choice with reasonable fees, etc.