CuseFan

As someone who worked in an actuarial practice that was part of an accounting firm (although I am neither), I am of the very strong opinion that those are quite different even though they may seem similar. This is why - look at the signature on the audit report, it says "PricewaterhouseCoopers" (or maybe now it's just "pwc") not the individual audit partner's name, whereas the Schedule SB is the individual's signature. When that individual changes, even if the firm does not change, I believe it should be reported, and I have seen it done routinely. Conversely, if you kept the work all along and went to a different firm or became self-employed, I do not think that is reported and again disagree with Effen, but less convincingly.

Right. They may not be benefiting with respect to the gateway requirement but they are not statutorily excluded and so count in your coverage and nondiscrimination testing denominators. If your combo pass coverage w/o benefiting these two then you need not give them gateway, but then must pass NDT with them as zeroes. Deferrals and match for them only matter in determining average benefit percentages, if needed.

As you note, you have zero average compensation for 415 purposes and where is the evidence of actual service? If it was an owner (not by attribution) who did not have net compensation because expenses exceeded revenue (but owner generated revenue) then I could see counting service. But if I'm an IRS agent looking at this, I'm thinking either the spouse was volunteering (and so not an employee) or maybe getting paid under the table, which opens all sorts of other scrutiny.

https://www.barrons.com/articles/altaba-stock-finra-yahoo-nasdaq-alibaba-delisting-51570551636 Yes, apparently delisted and in escrow pending liquidation, but certainly not valueless. Looks to be trading OTC but that fails to create public pricing/published FMV, but brokers could have pricing info. Agree with Bird's assessment.

Remember that this is (or should be) a negotiated settlement, so IRS will likely come in initially at the high end and the sponsor or its representative should be prepared (with evidence/facts, not simply narrative - we didn't know, thought TPA handled it all) to negotiate. If you can get half-way (or close) between initial IRS amount and the VCP sanction, I think that is a reasonably favorable outcome unless truly extenuating circumstances justify an even lower sanction. Good luck.

I would request PBGC make a determination. If PBGC says not professional services and plan is covered then the plan is PBGC covered regardless of what IRS might think.

If not frozen, you still have annuitized the prior balance, so it goes to zero. Each year's subsequent credit then gets converted to annuity and added. There is no subsequent interest credit because there is no beginning account balance - unless the plan weights current year contribution credits for interest. The only way you can draw down like installments from a continuing account balance is if installments are allowed by the plan and elected.

Also check the document. If you truly convert the balance to an annuity then the balance should go to zero and you only have the annuity (if plan frozen), or if not frozen, then each year's CB credit is converted into additional annuity benefit.

I agree, involuntary cash-out provisions can be added or deleted (especially if voluntary lump sum distribution is still available) - BUT, if the plan has not been cashing out under $5,000 balances as required by the document then you have an operational defect. Amending out this provision may eventually sweep it all under the rug, but they would be "exposed" to scrutiny for a few years.

So all eligible employees are subject to the same rate of match, correct? 0% on the first 3% and then 25% on deferrals above 3%. I think you are OK, even for BRFs. It would not fall under any safe harbor protections and would have to satisfy ACP testing which in a sense polices your effective availability - which is a facts and circumstances test.

If the plan allowed in-kind rollovers I expect the person could re-contribute back the shares, but depending on the current value when rolled back, they might not be able to redeposit all the shares (if value had increased) or avoid taxation (if value had decreased) because I think you have to consider the FMV as of each event - distribution and repayment. And if these were ER securities for which the net unrealized appreciation was being further deferred, that muddies the situation further.

I'm with Mojo and RBG, and once an employee is terminated, for what purpose other than plan communications would such e-mail be relevant?

CBZ is correct - you can exclude such items and be a safe harbor definition but it is an all or nothing choice, you cannot pick and choose among the excludable items.

Language is key - plan could allow for transfers or distributions, but must be at participant's discretion/election and not the employer's. Is that your issue or are you saying the plan only allows for transfers and not distributions for diversification? We have to clear on what the violation may be, if there is indeed one, to determine how to fix.

Peter, that is a great idea and something we've suggested but I have not yet heard of anyone asking for and getting a professional opinion letter from their accountant or attorney. I expect any such letter would be caveated from here to Wuhan, limiting any usefulness to a demonstration of good faith if needed in the wake of an adverse governmental interpretation.

CRDs are temporary, so no, you would not want to generally amend distribution timing unless you wanted to keep it that way. Just amend for CRDs by 2022 deadline, but be sure to do so in conformity with how the plan was administered, whether to the fullest extent of the law or on some other restricted basis.

And there could be other issues - if another plan or IRA that is asked to accept a rollover wants proof that the plan is qualified, or if a participant is filing bankruptcy and looking to protect qualified plan benefits from creditors. Having a FDL is not required but it is certainly advisable. That the prior TPA, rather than the client, is making the argument raises a big red flag to me - I would have a meeting with the client and then suggest you go over every thing with a fine-toothed comb.

Favorite quote of day! Another example of how payroll providers have difficulty correctly handling their specialty (i.e., doing payroll). So why anyone would trust them with an ancillary service like 401(k) administration, with which they have little expertise? - just sayin'

Proceeds must be used for "payroll" expenses within 8 weeks, although there are discussions that could get extended. Payroll includes benefits and retirement contributions in addition to wages. Payments to cover health and welfare benefits don't go "to" employees but are made for the benefit of employees, so how would retirement contributions be any different? And if the contribution went to a DB plan it doesn't get allocated to individual employees at any time regardless. However, I would steer my clients to their accountant and/or attorney if they are considering using PPP to fund retirement plans beyond what they would normally fund for the subject 8-week period, like matching and/or safe harbor contributions funded on a payroll period basis. I'm not saying it can't or shouldn't be done, and I am a proponent of serious consideration for doing this - but it is a tax and legal issue without a lot of exacting guidance, so those are the people who should be advising clients on this, not their plan providers or TPAs.

Sarbanes-Oxley (the Enron law) provides the limits/requirements concerning other/non-audit services that a company's auditors can perform. Issues arise when the firm is auditing numbers that go on financial statements that it generated, resulting in auditing their own work. Standards may be different for public and private companies, and plan audits versus corporate audits, but this is a professionalism/ethics issue to be explored by the auditors within the respective firm, not the TPAs.

The PPP Q&A seemed to indicate it is allowed and Marty Pippins said as much in an article posted on ASPPA site. Retirement contributions are considered payroll costs and DB contributions were specifically mentioned with DC contributions as not subject to the $100,000 of pay limitation. What is not clear is whether any and all DBP contributions made during the 8-week post PPP receipt window could count as payroll costs. As this is quite a gray area absent any more guidance, we suggest if any of our clients are interested in pursuing that they consult their accountant, attorney or both. One thing that is certain, an unincorporated sole proprietor cannot use PPP top fund retirement.

I think pre-approved plans (at least FT William) have built these is already. The FTW one is written such that an employer may grant such relief, presumably by a resolution to "activate" the provision. So there is still a decision and paperwork required but not necessarily an amendment. I'm not expressing an opinion as to whether this is or is not the best way to handle, just communicating how it had been explained to me and how I understand it. The issue is that COVID-19 is considered a national (health) emergency rather than a natural disaster and so had to be specifically legislated (CARES Act) for relief.

It's possible and likely. You wouldn't "lose" your pension but your payments would stop because you wouldn't be considered retired. They would resume when you again retired. Retirement meaning you are not working in any covered employment as defined by your union/plan.

Agree with Bird. If my pay is adjusted for the reduction and my reduced pay is now my pay, fine, but if I'm funding my own SH through an actual payroll withholding, I think that is a huge issue. And the math doesn't work either as you note.

The document absolutely says what you need to do but you may need to dig for it and tie a couple of different sections together. The important item to identify is the annuity starting date, which should also be defined in the plan. ASD can be different for annuity versus lump sum, but for a plan termination is likely the proposed distribution date. Follow the plan's provisions for death before or after the annuity starting date as applicable. Some plans (individually designed, as I haven't seen in pre-approved documents) may specify the particular situation where a valid election is made but the participant dies before the annuity starting date and may pay the benefit according to the election but I would not say that's an "automatic". Hopefully, if needed, you can get the surviving spouse/beneficiary to elect a lump sum now in place of the participant.