CuseFan

Agreed. If anyone has worked 500 hours they have become entitled to a contribution without any further requirements and so you are precluded from amending the formula.

Either client got bad advice or the plan was poorly designed or client has selective memory - or possibly a combination of all three. #1 - 2015 is in the books correct and proper as the plan was written, I assume, in which case there is nothing to correct and so #2 and #3 are moot.

re-issue to the estate is the correct action.

I agree w/MoJo, my understanding is that only tax levies other than QDROs. But my understanding is that tax levies can also compel distribution. Also, fiduciary fraud against the plan can trigger a forfeiture of benefits as restitution, but only for the plan. I've had clients who were victims of employee embezzlement who wanted to withhold retirement funds for restitution, but could not do so unilaterally. But as part of plea deal, they could request distribution and then use for restitution. This is a timely discussion given OJ Simpson's pending parole release, with his $5M retirement account in the Screen Actors Guild plan and $100,000+ annual NFL pension as that all relates to the mostly unpaid civil suit settlement owed the Goldmans. http://money.cnn.com/2017/07/20/news/o-j-simpson-retirement-income/index.html

Thanks guys, enjoyed the old time baseball references nearly as much as RBG's Blazing Saddles reference yesterday.

http://www.5500tax.com/voluntary-benefits-form-5500/ I think you're ok (Google is a wonderful thing people). However, in a cafeteria plan - "plan" - I think you answered your own question there. Also, many voluntary benefits you don't want through pre-tax premiums because that makes the benefit taxable.

if the fee is $25/per then it should come out of plan assets/accounts that way. if this is a TPA fee and not recordkeeping, you're doing the same work for someone with a $1000 account as with a $50000 account, at least when it comes to including in testing, do a statement (if applicable). if that is not how the fee is determined, but how it "shakes out", then you need to really drill down into how it's determined or apportioned, what is a fixed base, what is a per participant service, and what, if anything is asset-based. maybe look at how you would charge each plan if it was separate and use that ratio to split fees.

RBG, you made my day!

You can use a third party loan service bureau, such as BPAS MyPlanLoan, to administer loan program that enables terminated participants to continue repaying loans after they leave company - stems leakage, it's a great benefit - as well as potentially allow terminated participants with balances to take (and repay) new loans. This also takes loan administration out of payroll and TPA hands, making leans more automated and efficient - easier for HR/payroll and TPA.

Yes, that is part of the teaching (sic), as well as the pessimistic view that no matter how many years in a row you make 1/2 or 3/4 of a million dollars, that next year it could be slashed to "only" a few hundred thousand a cause a struggle to survive, and finally, of course, professional investment management, because we all know doctors are experts there as well! Sorry, it's cynical Thursday. Employees in for sure, and yes, could count his private practice/self employed service as well, but should be in document.

Yes. However, a fully subsidized unreduced early retirement benefit is most likely in place to get people to actually retire early, so allowing someone to take in-service of such would seem counter-productive.

DB plan (takeover, data issues) requires QJSA notice given prior to NRD, and if election is not made or a written election to defer (no later than RBD) is not made, then benefits are required to commence in the normal form as of the 60th day of the year following the year in which NRD occurs. Person's NRD was 7/1. Takeover data issues delayed calculation of benefit and delivery of QJSA forms until after 7/1. There is no RASD in the plan. Do we prepare QJSA for 9/1 ASD with two month actuarial increase or do a "corrective" QJSA back to 7/1?

Not required yet, but highly encouraged and will be required in the future. it's so easy there's no reason not to do it that way. Top Hat Plan Statement Plan administrators of "top hat" plans can use this web page to electronically file the statement described in section 2520.104-23 of the Department of Labor's regulations. Top hat plans are unfunded or insured pension plans for a select group of management or highly compensated employees. The Department recently published a proposed regulation that would make it mandatory to electronically file the statement. In the interim, plan administrators of top hat plans are encouraged to file plan statements using this electronic system. Plan administrators who use this electronic filing system will have satisfied the filing requirements under the current regulation. To go directly to the statement, click on the link "Proceed to File Your Top Hat Plan Statement" below.

yes, that works

agreed and thanks for the clarification

if it was a distribution in conjunction with the termination then the participant should be included. If February was the termination date (and not distribution timing for earlier plan termination date) then this precluded the termination and the person need not share in excess allocation. HOWEVER, allocating on PVAB is not automatically nondiscriminatory. If formula was integrated then such an allocation could violate 401(l). If the plan was a CBP that greatly favored owners by leveraging a PSP with combined testing, allocating excess CB assets on account balances will likely need to be general tested and not likely to pass w/o combining with PSP - which may not be possible because they no longer have the same PY. If you had a safe harbor non-integrated design then allocating on PVABs should be nondiscriminatory.

exactly, so the key date is the actual merger date as specified in corporate resolutions, plan amendments, etc., which, if it was 12/1, then regardless of when assets were consolidated the plans are deemed one on 12/1 and that is the last day for A's plan and so 7/31/2017 is your unextended 5500 filing due date and deadline for any extension.

The dividends are earnings and should not be part of hardship availability, they should be tracked in their own money type and also fully vested.

We have often found that a letter explaining the SSA reporting issues, that "may be entitled" does not mean "is entitled" and that all plan liabilities were satisfied upon plan termination, which was audited by the PBGC, and their benefit was either previously distributed prior to or in conjunction with the plan termination (SOL standing for something else here). If you know the identity of the insurer you can refer them there in case an annuity was purchased. Also suggest they review their own records - bank statements, IRA statements, etc. for their prior receipt of the distribution This usually satisfies the participant, especially if the benefit is relatively small. it certainly helps if records are maintained and the courts have definitely sided with claimants if the employer did not retain sufficient records - but the goal is not to get to that point.

if eligible, how are Amish not benefiting? Did they timely execute a permitted participation waiver? They can't just say don't give me PS and the employer comply contrary to plan provisions. if they are employees and paid a wage, this is really just deferred wages - they are part of their total compensation - so how are they morally obligated to forego? (is not OASDI withheld from their pay?) It should be explained they must be included by law, I'd hope their moral beliefs include following the law of the land. Of course, this might be a "kick the can down the road" solution as you still have to get them to take the distributions if plan was set up to exclude them, that's another issue.

the only limits to which catch-up deferrals are subject are their own, nothing else

1 - almost always 2 - sometimes, if sponsor has an ERISA attorney routinely engaged (usually larger plans) 3 - rarely, at least up to mid-market

Well, everyone has five years to figure it out before the balance must be distributed under the RMD rules!

if the PS total was a specific dollar amount, say $100,000, then not only did some people get too much (because fringe was not excluded from pay), but others were shortchanged because it was a zero-sum error. If you have HCEs predominantly in the windfall group (the ones most likely with fringe benefits) but not the shortchanged group then the error was also discriminatory, which probably takes 11-g away. Agree with KC in terms of either 1) re-allocating the contribution amount correctly or 2) contributing additional amounts to the shortchanged group to make them equal. However, that could be problematic because when you look at the percentage of plan comp (fringe excluded), it could be different for many of the participants - so to what percentage do you equalize?

Look at the following. Don't forget about the geographically dispersed multiple parcels requirement. And the property must be leased back to the employer or an affiliate (so contributing the owner's villa on the French Riviera probably doesn't work). Finally, any such contribution of property must be above and beyond the ERISA MRC, which must be made in cash. https://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/irm_04-072-011-cont01.html 4.72.11.3.7.2.1 (12-17-2015) Qualifying Employer Real Property 1.Employer real property is defined in ERISA 407(d)(2) as real property (and related personal property) a plan owns and leases to an employer (or an affiliate of the employer) of employees covered by the plan. Note: This term is often confused with property that an employer owns. Employer owned property leased to the plan is not exempt under ERISA provisions for the acquisition and holding of qualifying employer real property. Example: Company C reports on its defined contribution plan’s Form 5500 that it owns employer real property or employer securities valued at $200,000. Its statement of assets, however, lists no real estate holdings and corporate debt and lists equity instruments valued at $25,000. This discrepancy may indicate that the filer is confusing employer real property (i.e., property owned by the plan and leased to the employer) with property owned by the employer and leased to the plan. 2. Qualifying employer real property is defined in ERISA 407(d)(4) as parcels of employer real property that: Are geographically dispersed (there must be more than one property). Are suitable (or adaptable without significant cost) for more than one use (even if such property is leased to only one lessee). Insofar as their acquisition or retention is concerned, comply with ERISA, Title I, Subtitle B, Part 4 other than the diversification requirements. In other words, the investment in employer real property is prudent, in accordance with plan documents, etc., but not necessarily sufficiently diversified so as to minimize the risk of large losses to the plan.