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?

[Advert.]

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.

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?

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).

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?

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.

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?

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?!