Barbara

Here are answers to a few of the questions posed: 1. I'm a consultant hired to fix the problem, so I'm neither the former TPA nor affiliated with the Payroll Company. 2. Both the 2017 and 2018 SH Notices specify a SH Match, so that is/was arguably the client's intent. Client indicates he had no idea payroll company was required to restate the Plan (to take it out of Volume Submitter status), and was sent signature pages only, not the adoption agreement, until we just requested that now. 3. The Adoption Agreement issued by the payroll company that was supposedly effective 12-27-17 allows for a discretionary match plus a SH NEC, but not for both a SH NEC and a SH Match. 4. Payroll Company advanced the funds for the SH Nonelective and allocated these to Participant accounts sometime this March. Here are the questions: 1. Can the funds that were allocated in March be removed from Participant accounts without filing under VCP, so that the SH Match amounts can then be properly allocated? 2. If the answer to #1 is no, does anyone think we can use SVP? 3. Is there any other correction method possible?

Tom, the new, prototype document was written in December of 2017. The original volume submitter document has been in effect for many years prior to 2017. There was both a 2017 SH Notice and a 2018 SH Notice; both of which say the SH is the Enhanced Match; it is not a "maybe" SH Notice. I don't see how the payroll provider document could be in effect for 2017 due to the requirement of not amending a SH Plan mid year. Mike P, when you say I'm stuck with both, what do you mean? Both what?

For many years, Client has sponsored a volume submitter SH plan with an Enhanced Match and discretionary integrated PS formula. The SH notice was timely prepared and distributed for 2017 by December 1, 2016. Client became unhappy with TPA, fired them for 2017, and hired its Payroll service provider to do admin, effective December 29, 2017. Payroll Service restated the Plan and changed it to a 3% SH Nonelective formula and changed the PS formula as well, and claims it's for the 2017 plan year. Client didn't notice the changes in the two formulas until just now., but obviously discontinuing the SH match without Notice and amending the Plan mid year 2017 are clearly unacceptable. Question is what to do next? Does the former, volume submitter Safe Harbor match plan with the integrated formula control for 2017, or could there be a viable argument to use the 3% Nonelective plan with the comp to comp PS allocation formula?

Thanks to everyone for your help and responses. I've found 3 names, and passed them on to my former client.

I have a former client that established a nonelecting church plan that's a DB plan. The plan was never restated for PPA. Does anyone know how I can refer the client to a qualified firm to both do the restatement and also file under EPCRS?