susieQ

Thank you for your reply, I really appreciate your time.

I have not encountered this problem previously. An employee elected $3,050 for 2023 FSA. During 2023, the employer began using direct deposit for payroll. The result of the direct deposit is that the payroll company processed the 01/01/2024 payroll early, December 29, 2023. The 01/01/2024 compensation and deductions are now included for all purposes in 2023. So the participant that elected the $3,050 FSA for 2023 has now deferred $3,200 for 2023. It seems to me this is an excess contribution. Does it need to be distributed to the participant as such? Thank you.

Thank all of you for your replies. I did verify this center is on the HRSA.gov FQHC list. Everything I've read indicates that FQHC or FTCA covered employees are considered federal employees for the purpose of malpractice insurance only. We were not asked to determine their status. Rather, a few years ago, when we notified them their 403(b) plan had grown to audit size, they instructed that we treat the plan as governmental, as such they were not required to file Form 5500 nor obtain an audit. I was not involved at that time, but recently became aware of the situaiton. I don't believe we have adequate CYA regarding the decision to cease Form 5500 filings. I do not believe they are governmental. If not, they have missed a few years of Form 5500 filings and large plan audits. That is my concern. Thanks again....

A 501(c)(3) employer provides medical care as a health center. It files Form 990 annually. It has provided a copy of their 2015 IRS letter acknowledging they are a 501(c)(3) public charity. It has sponsored a 403(b) plan since 2003. Now they claim that they are also a governmental entity and therefore not required to file Form 5500 nor obtain a plan audit. Part of it's claim to governmental status is that they receive federal funding. Additionally they are deemed as FTCA. I do not believe just because the clinic employees are treated as federal employees for malpractice insurance coverage purposes, the entity is therefore governmental. If the center was not established and is not maintained by a health district, city, county, state or federal governmental entity, it is not governmental, correct? Thank you.

I've been looking at the various options for administration and document software or subscription service. It seems the only options are: ASC ftWilliam Datair FIS Relius Are there any others? Thank you,

No Contributions to your Profit Sharing/401(k) Plan for a While? Complete Discontinuance of Contributions and What You Need to Know While plan sponsors aren’t required to make contributions to their profit sharing/401(k) plan every year, contributions must be “recurring and substantial” for a plan to be considered ongoing. Employee Plans Exam guidelines state that if the employer hasn’t made contributions in three of the past five consecutive years, the plan may have incurred a complete discontinuance of contributions. When a complete discontinuance of contributions occurs, the plan sponsor must treat the plan as a terminated plan and fully vest all participant accounts for the plan to remain qualified. Determining if there’s been a complete discontinuance of contributions is based on facts and circumstances, for example, the plan sponsor’s history of profitability, and the probability of future contributions from the sponsor. During its Complete Discontinuance of Contributions Project, the Employee Plans Compliance Unit (EPCU) looked at Forms 5500 and 5500-SF showing both: No contributions for the preceding five years (excluding 401(k) plans’ employee deferral contributions) Distributions Project Goals To determine if a complete discontinuance of contributions occurred If there was a complete discontinuance of contributions, to ensure participants were correctly 100% vested To determine if plan participants were incorrectly identified as partially vested terminated participants on incorrectly prepared Forms 5500/5500-SF Project Results The EPCU found plans that had experienced a complete discontinuance of contributions. Most of these employers did correctly 100% vest plan participants, but a few employers were unaware of this requirement. These employers corrected this vesting error for all affected participants through the Employee Plans Compliance Resolution System (EPCRS). Additional findings included: Plan sponsors who incorrectly identified participants on the Form 5500 as terminated with less than 100% vesting. These plan sponsors filed an amended Form 5500. Cases in which facts and circumstances indicating the failure to make plan contributions didn’t rise to the level of a complete discontinuance. We informed plan sponsors of the law on complete discontinuance of contributions for future reference. Planning Tips If you haven’t made contributions to your profit sharing plan for three of the past five years, consider the facts and circumstances to determine if a complete discontinuance of contributions has occurred: Your history of profitability/ability to make contributions. Whether you’ll be able to make contributions in the future. Correction If you’ve had a complete discontinuance and have made partially vested distributions, the plan’s qualification is at risk. You can fix this failure through EPCRS. Correction requires restoring previously forfeited accounts to affected participants, adjusted for lost earnings. If your filed Form 5500/5500-SF incorrectly identifies partially vested terminated participants, fix the error promptly by filing an amended return. Contact us If you have questions about this project, email us and include “Complete Discontinuance” in the subject line. Make sure you include your telephone number so we can contact you with answers. We’re sorry, we can’t answer technical questions unrelated to your compliance check. If you have account specific questions, see EP Customer Account Services. Page Last Reviewed or Updated: 17-May-2022 https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/no-contributions-to-your-profit-sharing-401-k-plan-for-a-while-complete-discontinuance-of-contributions-and-what-you-need-to-know

https://retirementlc.com/retirement-plans-for-statutory-employees/

Thanks Luke. I do not know any details at this point.

Is anyone familar with "Participation Loans" as described below? Can a bank use their profit sharing plan's assets to purchase a portion of a loan from the lead lender? "As defined by the FDIC, a loan participation is an arrangement under which a lender originates a loan to a borrower and then sells a portion of that loan to one or more other financial institutions. The lead or originating lender retains a partial interest in the loan, holds all loan documentation in its own name, services the loan, and deals directly with the customer." Thank you...

It seems you had an attorney in/around 2010 handling this matter? Contact that attorney. Contact the employer that sponsors the plan. They need to know or be reminded there is a QDRO. Fidelity works for the employer and will act more quickly if instructed by them.

Thanks for the entertaining replies...

Position is in Ft. Worth, currently not a telecommute, could be in future.

Has anyone had trouble filling a 401(k) admin position in recent months? We are hiring and our ads have not generated much interest. I've placed ads on LinkedIn, Indeed, and adding one to Benefitslink today. I'm just wondering if others have had success and their recommendation for where to connect with good candidates. Thank you.

If I had access to the current edition of the EOB, I wouldn't be asking. Thanks!

Source for adding EACA midyear - - https://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/63420-adding-eaca-mid-year/&tab=comments So does the tax credit carry a requirement that the first plan year for which auto enrollment is added must be a full year? Or that to be eligible for the tax credit, EACA must cover all employees?

I have a client with an existing 401(k) plan that wants to add EACA for 2021 to take advantage of the pension plan startup tax credit. My understanding is that they can add EACA for 2021, effective March 03, 2021, even though it won't be for a full year and that EACA will only apply to newly eligible employees. My question is does 2021 count for the available tax credit since it is NOT a full year? Thank you.

A Safe harbor Match plan distributed a SH notice for 2021 but now, (12/23/20) would like to rescind the notice, NOT make a SH Match in 2021. Does the plan need to follow the 30 day notice rules and actually begin SH Match January 2021 or does it make a difference that the year for which the SH Match was promised has not yet started?

My interpretation is that the Act is not identifying which payments can be suspended when it references "payments due March 27, 2020 through December 31, 2020." Rather it is indicating at which payment (point), the one year delay can begin. I assume it is taking into account that Participants will likely fall behind in ability to pay at different points in time. For some, they can no longer pay in April, 2020 and others may not encounter an issue until December, 2020. So if the suspension starts April, 2020, repayment restarts in April, 2021. If suspension is started in December 2020, then repayment restarts in December 2021.

So a plan that does NOT currently permit loans but wants to take advantage of the CARES loan options, if they do not create a "regular" amendment now to add a loan provision, will be making loans available to ONLY Coronavirus affected/eligible participants, right? The future amendment will only address the Coronavirus type loan, loans to "eligible" participants, right? In other words, the future amendment won't have language that makes loans available to all participants, correct?

Yes, processing transactions is one of our duties and what I think most qualifies a TPA as essential. Thank you.

Many cities have issued "shelter-in-place" orders for citizens, closing businesses that are not considered essential. We are having a hard time determining if our TPA firm meets the Homeland Security definition of essential. We are purely administration, we are not a CPA firm, do not sell product. Thoughts? Thank you

Am I correct in thinking that a previously Cycle D individually designed defined benefit plan must be restated by April 30, 2020? Thanks for the help...

I'm preparing GUST, EGTRRA and PPA restatements for an employer who is under IRS audit. The employer has been applying a 1300 hours requirement for a participant to receive the annual profit sharing contribution. Obviously, that is not an option in the non-standardized document I am using. The employer has asked me for a citation as to when 1,000 became the maximum number of hours permitted. Is it an IRS rule? Part of ERISA? I haven't been able to find something in writing to give to the employer. I don't think it will be sufficient to say the document doesn't permit it. Thank you.

A safe harbor match 401(k) plan currently has a six month eligibility (no hours per month requirement). Due to some part time students who work on an as needed basis, the Employer would like to amend their plan to require 200 hours per month as part of their 6 month eligibility. They would like this amendment effective date 1/1/2019. I believe the amendment is permissible, but only PROSPECTIVELY with a 30 day notice. A coworker believes the amendment can be effective retroactively to 01/01/2019 because it will only apply to those hired on/after 01/01/2019. I'd appreciate some input.