Bob the Swimmer

Agree with Peter---there are a few articles I've seen out there on ERISA records retention policies in the past (when I wasn't looking for them). If you want them, a Google search should be fruitful.

I agree with DFVCP, that's what we do for our clients. BTW, has anyone received responses from DOL lately and within what time frame ? Thanks. Our last one 8 months ago took about 4 months door to door top receive approval.

I agree with most of what Peter said (and says) as he has great suggestions and advice---if anyone audits you (IRS or DOL) you'd have to show a reasonable process and document the results for the files.

If you use actual earnings for the highest -performing fund for the period of time, that should work.

And where actual returns are in an array for various mutual funds, I recommend picking the highest one. That has worked in the past. BTW, this makes a big difference in early 2020 versus now--for several of my clients. In one case, it was their precious metals fund that was up the most during the pandemic ! A good recordkeeper/investment manager can provide you with the return for the proper number of days for each fund.

Agree with Carol----and recent studies show that hospital employees and teachers especially may be woefully unprepared in the financial planning arena, hence they have been (and are) prime targets for these annuity salespeople many years ago. I'd vote for a law that shortens annuity withdrawal provisions to no more than 3 years (10 years plus is a lifetime today).

Great advice given by all posters; One minor edit-to the last poster, Aon Hewitt still exists, they just sold the administration business to Alight ( I know because I have an account with them).

Our firm market prices a wide range of executive and employee positions for a fee. If you are interested, email me your phone number at rjones5335@aol.com, one of my email addresses.

Many job lists exist including the IFEBP- International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans and SPARK which might be helpful.

Our actuary is a real good one- I’ve known him for over 40 years- and his fees are roughly at that cutoff for first year and then below that for after. If you want to respond to this post I’ll provide his information.

Good comment i would also add that the Plan should supersede over any supplemental documents under normal circumstances as embodied in a number of court decisions, unless there is more to this than we’re aware of.

Good story- it’s my wife’s birthday today and she thought till the very end that I was giving her a historical update. Thanks 😊

My DB was overfunded at 67 by a much smaller amount ( 12 years of not max contributions but great investment results ). Only comment here is my actuary kept me posted before being overfunded- this is a fairly large amount at a relatively young age. I could be wrong ( it would be the first time this hour) but where was the communication on this to the client ? 👀

Right on both pros’ answers- the requirement is Net Earnings from Self-Employment ( sch. C income) which I’ve called NESE when I teach this subject.

Great last point shERPA--I've been filing my returns for 15 years and essentially CODA and PS have the same flavor tax-wise.

MIKE-- Agreed, great point--that's one of the things we would have to argue. Appreciate your thoughts.

See attached which is fairly good by a law firm and there are a number of pieces I found on a quick google search. Respond if you need help. SCP----4-23-21---The art of self correction.pdf

Thought we just had this question or a similar fact pattern earlier this week. You may want to check unless I'm having a senior moment.

EBECatty---Thank you--I agree. After 45 years of consulting (and growing), this is one of those that I think interpreting the language provides a reasonable way forward, as Luke and Mike wisely stated. The test I have used mostly is what would I do for my own company---and I heartily agree with you. If I can allow a reflection, I have seen how expensive even the simplest fixes are for many companies under VCP and it's hard to justify how much it costs to fix something fairly simple. Thanks again and be safe.

EBECatty--Thanks, that's helpful. Devil's advocate, in your case, it's not possible (or practical) to increase loan provisions in operation because not everyone had taken (or would take) a loan out. And when you think about EPCRS going back to the beginning and I was around then----there is no disadvantaged participant here (but there is a failure to properly follow the plan's terms). In fact, only advantaged participants; and I thought SCP's purpose was to clear up more ministerial, less consequential errors that are not practical for VCP to address. Bottom line: What would you do if this were your plan ? Sounds like you might do the VCP. Thanks much.

Luke and Mike, thanks for your good thoughts. Problem is the amendment document covering the merger several months before inexplicably does not mention the match. In fact, that's why the remaining vendor who was used to the higher match applied it to the entire group. The increase in the benefit language could be problematic---but given the history of EPCRS, no one is disadvantaged here, only advantaged (the B employees). On the other hand, the plan document does not reflect what happened for 16 months operationally. (Perhaps, we could check the nondiscrimination benefit testing under 401(a)(4) for B HCEs versus B NHCEs.) Any other thoughts ? Thanks.

Mike--- Thanks for the quick response--Very respectfully....Are you sure ? Because a whole year plus 4 months has passed without the proper matching formula provided for by the new plan. Thanks--

Sorry about the length in advance ! Plan A for Company A: At the end of 2019 this plan matched 100% of 3.5% contributed –and was merged into Plan B. This plan had a 2-Year Cliff Vesting program for company match dollars (0/100%). In addition, this plan has the same automatic enrollment features (e.g., start at 3% and increase 1% each year until 6% is achieved) as Plan B. Plan B for Company B: At the end of 2019 this plan matched 100% of the first 1% and then 50% of the next 5%. This plan had a 2-Year Cliff Vesting program for company match dollars (0/100%). In addition, this plan has the same automatic enrollment features (e.g., start at 3% and increase 1% each year until 6% is achieved) as Plan A. Effective 1/1/2020, the two companies merged to become Company AB. Effective 1/1/2020, all employee contributions were INTENDED to be matched at 100% of the first 3.5% contributed, the more generous formula. Their intent was to transfer the money from A to B in the first quarter of 2020, but COVID happened and they delayed until the market settled down; that transfer was initiated in the Fall of 2020 and has been completed. Now, Plan B has 100% of the money for Company AB. However, the new Plan amendments never provided for the more generous standard----100% of the first 3.5% match. Nevertheless, all company B employees received the more generous match even though the new plan did not provide for it while it was being contributed. Question is can we amend the plan now under SCP to provide retroactively for the more generous match that company A and B employees both got, or must we go under VCP ? Section 4.05 (in the SCP section) in Rev. Proc. 2019-19 says the following: No employees were disadvantaged. In fact, former B employees benefited by the higher match—the plan just did not properly provide for it at the time. It’s also well within the 2-year period for SCP. What do you think ?

I agree with ESOP guy; that's the way we've handled my company's records.

YES, it's still 2 audits of the plan, but can be done in one visit which may save both sides time and money