Guest nlmc18 Posted November 4, 2004 Posted November 4, 2004 Owner of 2 companies (A & B) offers a pension plan in which the employees of both A & B participate. Plan follows controlled group rules and files 1 5500 with 2 Sch. Ts. Owner now wants to set up a separate plan for the employees of B. Plan provisions will be the same. Assets will be transferred. The only change is 2 plans instead of 1. Why you ask....owner doesn't want to pay for a plan audit. The number of eligible participants employed by B is greater than 20% of the total eligibles. Might this be considered a partial termination of the AB plan? Appreciate any guidance anyone can offer.
WDIK Posted November 4, 2004 Posted November 4, 2004 Perhaps a spinoff would be more appropriate. ...but then again, What Do I Know?
GBurns Posted November 4, 2004 Posted November 4, 2004 Why would a new plan change anything? Wouldn't controlled group still be applicable along with the same audit requirement, anyhow? George D. Burns Cost Reduction Strategies Burns and Associates, Inc www.costreductionstrategies.com(under construction) www.employeebenefitsstrategies.com(under construction)
Guest nlmc18 Posted November 4, 2004 Posted November 4, 2004 GB-According to a Rep at DOL, each plan would be looked at separately to determine if an audit is necessary. They are still a controlled group for all testing. WDIK-Yes, a spin-off may be more appropriate.
david rigby Posted November 4, 2004 Posted November 4, 2004 Maybe it's just me, but I don't see "partial termination" here. I'm a retirement actuary. Nothing about my comments is intended or should be construed as investment, tax, legal or accounting advice. Occasionally, but not all the time, it might be reasonable to interpret my comments as actuarial or consulting advice.
Effen Posted November 4, 2004 Posted November 4, 2004 I can't believe the extra expense you created by making two plans out of one would be less than the amount you save by not doing the audit. You just doubled all of your admin expenses! Two plan docs, two recordkeepers, two 5500s... I can't believe that would be less than the cost of the audit. I would start to wonder what he/she is affraid they might find. Most employers want to consolidate plans because the admin is cheaper. Sounds a little fishy to me. The material provided and the opinions expressed in this post are for general informational purposes only and should not be used or relied upon as the basis for any action or inaction. You should obtain appropriate tax, legal, or other professional advice.
Kirk Maldonado Posted November 4, 2004 Posted November 4, 2004 I completely concur in Effen's remarks. It sounds like the source of the problem may be that the auditor is charging too much. A simple solution that may solve the problem is to seek competing bids for the audit. Kirk Maldonado
WDIK Posted November 4, 2004 Posted November 4, 2004 You just doubled all of your admin expenses! Two plan docs, two recordkeepers, two 5500s... I can't believe that would be less than the cost of the audit. Of course, we already know about Effen's fees. ...but then again, What Do I Know?
Effen Posted November 5, 2004 Posted November 5, 2004 You get what you pay for! The material provided and the opinions expressed in this post are for general informational purposes only and should not be used or relied upon as the basis for any action or inaction. You should obtain appropriate tax, legal, or other professional advice.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now