RatherBeGolfing

It could be. A few years ago I had a 1099 with an incorrect SSN. I was not able to E-file because the IRS was unable to confirm the 1099 info on my return with the bad SSN. I was forced to either file a paper copy or wait for the issuer of the 1099 to file a corrected 1099. Sounds like this is the same type of situation. J

Yep. I see it all the time with self directed brokerage account plans. It is one of those "yes we can do it but it won't be cheap" features. I don't really care what a provider charges as long as the plan isn't paying for it. If the sponsor wants to pay $700 a pop for QDRO reviews, that is their business. When participants pay for it, not so much... If a plan wants to spend that kind of money on a fairly common service, they should spend the money to get an independent fee benchmarking first.

Using language like this does a huge disservice to the plan sponsors (current and future) and participants who lurk these boards. There is no such thing as a no cost plan. The ones who market themselves as such are riddled with proprietary investments, termination fees, and other hidden costs that if properly taken into account would show that they are anything but "no cost". But effective marketing using terms like "no costs", "free" and "soloK" has created the appearance of a free alternative as long as you use a certain broker or investment house.

Ok the $700 attorney fee was a stretch. I am assuming the OP is talking about DC plans since the original question asked if could be payed by the plan and whether the fee had to be allocated to certain participants. Even in the more expensive markets like NY and CA, I doubt $700 as a flat fee would be reasonable. There could be individual cases where it is reasonable, but not as a standard fee. Your mileage may vary.

Those are the same steps we all have to take when we receive a DRO. Except for very rare cases, it is a fairly simple process and I'm sure your TPA has form letters they use with the DRO/QDROs. I still take issue with a flat fee of $700. Heck, the attorney who drafted the DRO probably charged less. If you want to pay $700 as the plan sponsor, have at it. I don't think a flat fee of $700 will ever pass the smell test when it comes from plan assets.

Can a fee for QDRO review be paid with plan assets? YES Can the fee be paid as general expense (all Ps share)? YES However, any fees paid using plan assets have to be reasonable and necessary. I would have a very hard time justifying a flat $700 fee for a TPA to do a QDRO review. Others may disagree.

You are very welcome

Participant A is not eligible to participate as of 04/01/16. Whether they started contributing doesn't matter for eligibility. A has a balance but cannot continue deferring until the new eligibility has been met. A couple of incidental notes: For purposes of the 5500, A still counts as a participant, but not an active participant Since A has a balance, s/he must receive all applicable notices, disclosures and statements such as SMMs, SPDs, etc...

To clarify, we file an annual return for all of our one-participant plans, regardless of assets. Doing so starts the SOL for the plan year and eliminates any need to track limits or whether the plan is still exempt. In my opinion, there are no compelling reasons to rely on the exemption.

Same here.

Participant A enters 3/1/16 when plan had immediate eligibility On 4/1/16 the plan is amended to require 1 year of service for anyone hired after 12/31/2015 As of 4/1/16, Participant A is no longer eligible to participate until s/he satisfies 1 year of service. Did the plan allow A to keep participating after 4/1/16?

no retroactive applicability, anyone in the plan will stay in the plan even if they don't meet the new eligibility.

The short answer is yes, you can "un-participate" an employee who has not met the eligibility requirements (or by excluding the employee by classification), even if you let them participate in the plan when you had less restrictive requirements. There is no protected right to continued participation. From the 2017 EOB (Ch 2, Section VI, Part E) If you don't want to exclude current participants who have not met the new eligibility requirements, simply make the amendment prospective. Keep in mind that this could create a discrimination problem if it favors HCEs. I hope that helps.

Hmmm well I was able to drag and drop as well but it attached as a picture rather than and attachment

Absolutely, it all depends on what you want to accomplish. I do think it is important to point out that you do not have to do it prospective only though, as there seem to be some confusion in this area. Of course, just because you can does not mean that you should.

The exclusion does not apply of there is a US source of income. It is a very narrow exclusion. Derrin Watson has a very good explanation here Who is the Employer

It depends on how you do your amendment. If you simply amend the plan to require 1Y/A21, anyone who has not satisfied the eligibility requirements are not eligible. It doesn't matter if they are current participants because the plan has immediate entry. There is no 411(d)(6) issue here. Also remember that just because you CAN exclude anyone who does not meet the new requirements doesn't mean that you have to. You could draft your amendment to only impact new hires. There are other issues such as discrimination, especially if you have a pattern of amendments in favor of HCEs, but you do not have to grandfather a participant who has not met the new requirements.

That was it, you changed it from .xls to .pdf. On my end, I just changed it back to .xls and it worked like a charm.

There was absolutely a clear answer at Annual but some in the audience did not want to accept the answer. The answer is that if you have immediate eligibility and later change that eligibility to something else, those who have not met the new eligibility are now not eligible to participate. There are no cutback issues here (which is what Brian was saying in his session and Sal confirmed during the general session the next day). But wait there is more... If you want the people who are in the plan to stay in, simply make your amendment prospective and you won't have any issues. As for discrimination issues, you should be fine changing the eligibility within the statutory limits.

I agree with the comments above, this is not a late deferral since that has to do with when the assets left the employer and was deposited to the trust. That clearly occurred. This is another problem all together. Is there an easy way to determine what the deferral should have earned had it ended up in the right account? After that it is a "simple" matter of making making each participant whole. The person who got the extra deferral should not benefit from it and the person who was shorted should not lose out because of it. To add an extra wrinkle, the correction could also vary depending on the recordkeeper. Some RKs will insists on an earnings calculation if you move a mistaken deposit from one participant to another, while others will be fine with just transferring the deferral.

Thanks Tom. This actually reminded me that I did not respond to my own topic (how is that for a bad job)... Mike sent me a spreadsheet that did exactly what I needed. Thanks for the attempt though and hopefully it led to learning how to attach a new item :)

That is the first time I hear of the IRS making an unannounced visit to a for a missing 945. That sounds like a huge waste of resources. As for the $0 945, you are correct that no 945 is needed. However, when the IRS requests a 945 for a period when no 945 is needed, you file a $0 945 to resolve the issue. That is usually printed on the IRS notice requesting the prior year 945. For some reason, responses to notices regarding 945's have a tendency to go missing. This is why I always send them certified mail / return receipt. I would get a POA right away and look into the visit though, it is possible there is more going on than missing 945.

The ERISA Outline book says to reverse payroll if not yet deposited to the plan. If already deposited to the plan:

Short but detailed summary of the arguments and the ruling