Nonamender Problem

[Below Ground]

I have been asked to look into a situation where a Plan Sponsor did absolutely nothing regarding compliance since adopting the Plan in 1994.  While I anticipate operational defects, my first concern is toward plan documentation.

My understanding is that the filing under the "Non-Amender Program" requires document updates for every required restatement that was not done.  My question is what document restatements would be needed for a Standardized Prototype which has an Opinion Letter dated 7/9/1991.  I do not have access to the Basic Document or any updates to the Basic Document.  Just a 2 page Adoption Agreement and the Opinion Letter.

Any suggestions on what needs to be done are greatly appreciated.

[Flyboyjohn]

Sounds like you need TRA'86, GUST, EGTRRA and PPA restatements.

Usually the hard one to find is the TRA'86 (called back then "Regional Prototypes") and we have one in case you need it.

[jpod]

When you say "Plan Sponsor," do you mean the prototype plan sponsor or the employer?

[Below Ground]

The Employer.

 

[JJRetirement]

It was quite a while back, but I submitted a VCP (during EGTRRA RAP) for an employer that had adopted a plan in 1987 and hadn't amended since. The plan was a generous money purchase plan for a tax exempt employer. I did not use the streamlined schedule that would have required all amendments be adopted retroactively as the correction method.  Instead I proposed to correct by adopting a current (then) EGTRRA volume submitter plan.  We received a compliance statement without having to go back to TRA 86 and GUST documents and interim amendments. I was surprised and needless to say, very pleased with the result.  

[Belgarath]

I've heard that they are less flexible on this now than they used to be, but I have no recent personal experience to either confirm or debunk that.

[Flyboyjohn]

Point of clarification- you don't need to execute and submit interims, each restatement incorporates the interims since the prior restatement (and we don't have any interims after PPA).

Note to Below Ground- if the AA and OL you have is for TRA'86 you might try submitting those without the BPD to avoid having to find a TRA'86 preapproved document

[Below Ground]

I would like to thank everyone for their input.  I greatly valued these insights.  I apologize that I did not reply earlier, but had a personal concern to address.  At present I am waiting for the Employer to get back to me to give the go ahead on services needed to correct this messy problem.  While I may be surprised, I strongly suspect that they will opt to do nothing and I will hear no more from them.  (They are not my client at this point.)  From what has been made available to me during this period of investigation, it appears that the reason we find such a mess is that this firm does not believe paying for services is not necessary.  I do know that I have no intention of providing a "gratuity service"; especially for a firm that has inferred that our industry as a whole provides nothing of value!  (We all run into one of these, I think.)  Again, thanks for your input.

[My 2 cents]

2 hours ago, Below Ground said:

From what has been made available to me during this period of investigation, it appears that the reason we find such a mess is that this firm does not believe paying for services is not necessary.

I think you meant to say that the firm does not believe paying for services is necessary.

Whatever it is that they provide to their customers, would they be willing to provide it for free to someone who is disinclined to pay them? 

I hold such employers in contempt!  May they suffer the full consequences of their compliance failures!

 

[Below Ground]

Thanks for correction on my typo.  Yes, I got a bit confusing.

I also hold contempt, and would normally say "I can't help you" since this firm will obviously be a problem at some point.  They are just "bad business" in my opinion.  Unfortunately, the broker is a good friend who ask that I look at it as a special favor.