BenefitsLink.com logo   

BenefitsLink
Message Boards Digest

February 22, 2018

Here are the most recently added topics on the BenefitsLink Message Boards:

Author's photo

Trisports created a topic in Correction of Plan Defects

Anonymous VCP

The prior TPA filed an anonymous VCP for the client. The IRS blessed the correction and invited the client to file it as a regular submission. With respect to the actual filing process, do we just file a regular VCP submission and we include as an attachment the IRS approval of the anonymous filing?
Number of replies posted  1 reply      Number of times viewed  41 views      Add Reply
 
[Advert.]

Navigating the Compliance Challenges of Missing Participants

Sponsored by Pension Benefit Information, Inc.
The DOL is coming ... Pension plan audits are on the rise with a specific focus on the Term-Vested population and RMD. Contact the pros at PBI to learn more about our new Term-Vested Audit & Remediation Service.
Author's photo

Dougsbpc created a topic in Defined Benefit Plans, Including Cash Balance

Top Heavy Minimum: 3% or 5% When No Benefits Accrued under DB Plan?

Suppose you have a company that sponsors a traditional DB plan and 401(k) plan with a December year end. [1] The DB terminated April 30, 2017 so no participant accrued a benefit for 2017. [2] The DB and 401(k) plans are top heavy as of 12/31/2016. [4] The plan documents indicate that a 5% top heavy minimum will be funded in the 401(k) plan instead of the 2% top heavy minimum in the DB plan. Question: Because the DB plan terminated in 2017 without any participants receiving a benefit, can just a 3% top heavy minimum be funded in the 401(k) plan for 2017 or must the 5% be funded?
Number of replies posted  1 reply      Number of times viewed  37 views      Add Reply
Author's photo

cwallace created a topic in 401(k) Plans

Prior Recordkeeper Not Providing Data for Old QDRO

Our Retirement Plan transitioned recordkeepers at the beginning of 2016. We don't have that many, but from time to time we will get QDROs in that require data and/or earnings calculations from prior to 2016 and we'll have to request that from the prior recordkeeper. For a while they were really good about providing the information relatively quickly. Now it is taking upwards of 6 months to get anything out of them. We have 3 QDROs currently pending that we are waiting for data from the prior recordkeeper that have been outstanding for more than 3 months. Is there any recourse against this recordkeeper (other than what would have been stated in the original contract with the recordkeeper)? Obligations as a holder of data that is governed by ERISA? I generally recommend new QDROs from incorporating provisions that need data from prior to 1/1/2016 to avoid this, but from time to time we'll get stale QDROs in (one participant waited 10 years to submit the QDRO to us).
Number of replies posted  2 replies      Number of times viewed  58 views      Add Reply
Author's photo

Kim DiMaria created a topic in 403(b) Plans, Accounts or Annuities

MWBE 403(b) Recordkeeping and Administration Firms

We are helping a client search for a 403(b) Recordkeeping and Administration Services provider and they are interested in including companies that are MWBEs (Minority and Women Business Enterprises) in their bidding process. Is anyone aware of any MWBE companies that provide Recordkeeping and Administration Services for 403(b) Plans?
Number of replies posted  1 reply      Number of times viewed  23 views      Add Reply
Author's photo

pjb1835 created a topic in 401(k) Plans

Flexibility of Individual Class Based New Comparability: Hard to Believe

Profit-sharing-only plan has a provision that each participant is in their own class for allocations. Plan has immediate eligibility. No compensation exclusions, no annual hours or last day condition. Not top heavy. Client identifies the following classes who will get allocations: Owner-employee (single HCE) maxes out. Owner-employee identifies lowest-paid individuals only statutory group and allocates just enough of a percentage to pass 401(a)(4) including average benefits and gateway -- kind of like a bottom-up QNEC. Gateway is only given to these individuals. A few of those individuals were excluded because they didn't work at least 1,500 hours and employed on last day. If individual class based has this much flexibility, why does any plan's profit sharing provision have an age/service, annual condition, compensation exclusions and employee class exclusions? All you need is for the employer to fill out a formula questionnaire each year to instruct the plan administrator who gets an allocation and how much.
Number of replies posted  11 replies      Number of times viewed  132 views      Add Reply
Author's photo

Griswold created a topic in Defined Benefit Plans, Including Cash Balance

Suspension of Benefits Notice Following Plan Merger: Only Applies to 'New' Accruals?

Company A sponsors Plan A; Company B sponsors Plan B. After Company B buys Company A, Plan A is frozen and merged into Plan B. Company A employees begin accruing new benefits under Plan B. I'm being told that the Suspension of Benefits Notice that Company B provided is only good for the new benefits and not for the old benefits, but I can't figure out why. (I'm getting this second hand and haven't seen any plan documents or the notice yet). Any thoughts?
Number of replies posted  3 replies      Number of times viewed  48 views      Add Reply
Author's photo

Bird created a topic in Investment Issues (Including Self-Directed)

3(21) and 3(38) Fiduciary Services: Over-hyped?

Is it just me or is this the most over-hyped "thing" in the last 5 to 10 years? I can't have a conversation with a recordkeeper or advisor without someone blurting out "3(21) and 3(38)" (and usually having no idea what they are saying). It seems that any real protection is from participant lawsuits - in the small plan market, that is simply not a threat. Is the DOL going after anyone for having "bad" investments? And...I know these services are inexpensive or "free" but it seems to me that to the extent there are costs, they are borne by the participants, but trustees and advisors are the ones being protected. How wrong is that?!
Number of replies posted  4 replies      Number of times viewed  39 views      Add Reply
BenefitsLink.com, Inc.
1298 Minnesota Avenue, Suite H
Winter Park, Florida 32789
(407) 644-4146

Lois Baker, J.D., President  loisbaker@benefitslink.com
David Rhett Baker, J.D., Editor and Publisher  davebaker@benefitslink.com
Holly Horton, Business Manager  hollyhorton@benefitslink.com

Copyright 2018 BenefitsLink.com, Inc. All materials contained in this mailing are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of BenefitsLink.com, Inc., or in the case of third party materials, the owner of those materials. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notices from copies of the content.

Links to web sites other than BenefitsLink.com and EmployeeBenefitsJobs.com are offered as a service to our readers; we were not involved in their production and are not responsible for their content.

Unsubscribe | Privacy Policy