SSRRS

HI, We do not do much work on cash balance plans. An actuary brought up the following: A TPA that he works with set up a Cash Balance Plan. They are getting a maximum that is lower than the cash balance allocation per the formula. Does this sound right? Thank you.

Hi, An owner only DB Plan (100% owner -no partners etc.) opened account with Bank. Bank did not want to open pension account so he opened the account with the corporate name only and left out "Defined Benefit Pension Plan" on the account name. It is a checking account with no interest -so there are no issues of bank issuing a 1099 for interest income. Is this a big issue that the account is missing db plan on the label? Thank you.

thank you for any help with this. Thank you!

Thank you. Your clear, and concise way of thinking is always appreciated,

CuseFan Thank you so much! Yes, correct, we did not apply a second forfeiture (double dip). Rather, as you are saying, we are just under reporting the vested balance of these two other participants. As their account balance is correct, however, their vested balance should show the same amount as their account balance (100% vested). They did not receive their money , so they were not underpaid......just wondering can--if the IRS would pick up on this--can the IRS say that since their vested balance is to low in a sense we are potentially could have taken money from them that they are entitled to. Then again, we can always show that for the following year on the report we fixed their vested balance to 100% percent.

I guess if they come back and ask us to show the calculation of the forfeiture, we then will show the 2 additional that forfeited and only then will mention that we noticed that these 2 others should also be 100 vested, but otherwise don't mention it, as to not point it out?

CuseFan and Nate thank you as always. We noticed that that there are 2 other participants who forfeited their unvested balances and their remains balances are now 100% vested. However, inadvertently, we did not change these other 2 participants vesting to 100%. When we respond to the IRS explaining that the 3 questioned are 100% due to the forfeitures, should we also point out that we noticed 2 other participants that should be 100 vested. Or is it better not to point it out, and just fix it on our end, and hopefully they won't pick up on it. Can you self correct during an audit, as if not, then maybe better not to point it out? Thank you.

Thank you Nate. I wasn't sure what the attorney was referring to, but with a bully personality as this client/attorney is anything scares.

Thank you CuseFan. I agree with you, unless since the Audit is for 2019 so the agent only sees the balance being 100% vested as of 2019 and doesn't see the allocation of the forfeiture that happened a few years prior? --(as can't figure out otherwise why they would ask this)

Hi, Thank you as always for all the knowledge and help. A PS Plan is under audit. The agent is questioning why three participants (terminated in 2012 )are shown with 100% vesting if based on their years of service they should only be 60% vested. The answer is correct, their vested percent should only be 60% , however, the unvested amounts were forfeited and used to reduce the contribution back in 2016. Therefore, their remaining account balance is all vested and that is why the report shows them with 100% vested balances. Question- Can this response open up any potential issues? Thank you.

Thank you Nate. Instead of hitting reply to the email (as possible spam) I wrote a new email to the client and attorney that was requesting the information, stating that I was quite surprised to get a request a day before a due date, as usually you have been fair and reasonable and then in parentheses I wrote (unless someone hacked into your email). ...The client, other then this email, never informed us of this firm change. Seems they have their own way of doing things.

Lou your brilliance and analytical mind is much appreciated! Thank you for the heads up re the unpaid work. And your question re why they just woke up now, really paints the picture perfectly.

Thank you Lou. Much appreciated. Yes, it is quite unreasonable to request this in this manner. Can they claim they never got these documents originally? They did have an audit (thankfully closed with no change), and we provided copies of quite a few of theses items, so I guess they can't reasonably claim that they never received anything. However, can they have a claim that not all was received? Then again it is their word against ours?

Hi We received the following request from an attorney representing our client (10/31 year end) that based on the request it seems the client is leaving us. The Request was made Wednesday afternoon (yesterday). Are we obligated to stop all that we are involved with and interrupt our scheduled meetings etc to provide them with this information on this last minute request? This is the first time we heard anything about this. And can they truly hold us responsible for penalties mentioned below? Thank you very much for any insights on this. "We need the following documents today, because we have to make a filing by Friday. Please send today. If we do not receive the documents, "client" will hold you accountable for any penalties, interest charges and damages, so please deal with this NOW. Thank you DB Plan · Most current plan document and all amendments thereto (the document should have been updated by July 31, 2021. · Most current SPD · actuarial report for plan years ending 10/31/2018, 10/31/2019 & 10/31/2020 · census data for plan years ending 10/31/2019 & 10/31/2020 · 2021 AFTAP · latest PBGC filing · asset statements for 10/31/2020 through current date · List of contributions made to the plan between 11/1/2020 – current date (this should match what is shown on the plan account statements. · any sponsor election forms signed 10/31/2019 to date (e.g., election to utilize pre-funding) · \historical compensation data (the current actuary should be able to provide this for years prior to 10/31/20219 (this is needed to develop average compensation). · ARPA elections, if any · copy of the latest annual funding notice · copy of the last distribution form (e.g., the form for the last participant paid out). DC Plan · Most current plan document (the version we need would have been signed between May 1, 2014 and current date). · Most current SPD · calculation reports for plan years ending 10/31/2019 & 110/31/2020. The report should detail the contributions made for each person under the plan. · asset statements for 10/31/2020 through current date (if participants direct their own investment, we would need a copy of each participant’s account statements)

Thank you so much, Effen, Calavera, CuseFAN, and fmsinc. As always your insights and broad scope of knowledge are much appreciated.

also would you give an increase (actuarial increase) on the A/B from 1/1/22 to the 5/1/22 assumed payout date or just an increase from 1/1/22 to todays date? Thank you.

Thank you Effen. Since the participant is 67, the lump sum is less if calculated as of the payout date as opposed to the request date that was a few months earlier. Can a participant claim that if the payment was made quicker, he would have received a higher lump sum?

Hi, Thank you all for your insight as always. I'm involved with a few things at once and have gone blank on this topic. Participant age 67 retires and requests a lump sum (DB Plan). The retirement and request was as of 1/1/22. If the lump sum is actually payed on March 14, 2022 do you calculate the lump sum as of 1/1/22 and give interest to 3/14/22? Thank you.

Hi, A DB Plan at year end receives the following statement in regard to their plan assets: Levonte Capital Capital Statement 12/31/2021 Asset 1 -Howard Avenue $250,000 Asset 2 Clearstream 500,000 Asset3 Flushing Ave 600,000 Total Plan assest $ 1,350,000 Is this considered eligible assets for an SF? Thank you.

Thanks Jakyasar.

I hear

Thank you BG5150. So if someone is filing a day or two after 2/15 (IDA), you can take a chance and file without DFVCP and if a notice is sent, then can always amend to file with DFVCP? Thank you very much.

Hi, The above was an S CORP. How about a sole proprietor that has a plan and the only participants in the plan are the owner and his son. Should this be an EZ based on the new regs? Thank you very much.

Thank you Nate. Can we file and if need be amend and file with the DFVCP?

thank you Lou. You are correct. However, this year we are understaffed with people out due to illness etc.