"Due to clerical error we had several late deposits for an employee in 2022 and 2023. I'm trying to fill out the form 5330 but i'm extremely confused on how to handle Schedule C Line 2. If there were multiple late deposits do I do one line per late deposit/missed earning amount or can I do a total? For the deposits from 2022 that weren't paid until 2023 do I need to put those on the form twice, or do I need fill out the form and submit it twice with those numbers? I'm the one who made the errors and am trying to avoid the $1200 fee associated with our ERISA people filling out the form on our behalf. I appreciate any help I can get as our accountant nor our plan consultant has been any help. For what it's worth the excise tax amount on the missed earnings is $17.66."

[Sponsored]

IRS Pre-approved DB & CB Documents are ready for you to start the restatement process. The restatement window for the Cycle 3 Documents is currently open and plans must be restated by March 31, 2025. Let DATAIR help you! 630-325-2600 or sales@datair.com.

"Company is establishing a new 401(k) safe harbor profit sharing plan with EACA features. The plan will have an effective date of 1/1/23. I'm told no one will start deferrals until 7/1/23, which will also be when the auto-enrollment would start. Notices would not have been provided to participants until recently (middle of June). I know you can start an EACA mid-year for new enrollees only, but in the case of this new plan would that still apply? Or would everyone as of 1/1/23 that hasn't opted in also be auto-enrolled?"

"401(k) plan sponsor (S) is being acquired in a stock purchase by Buyer (B), which has its own 401(k) plan. S intends to terminate its plan before the stock purchase transaction closes. S's employees will be hired by B upon closing, and will be immediately eligible to participate in B's plan. S will continue to exist as a subsidiary of B, though without employees, and will retain the EIN it has now. The TPA for B's plan contends that the successor plan rule is violated thereby and proposes merging the plans upon or after closing instead. I believe that if S terminates its plan pre-closing, the successor plan rule is inapplicable, even if S survives under its own EIN as a subsidiary of B. Any thoughts on who has the better argument? I also believe that S can terminate this safe harbor match plan mid-year without advance notice to participants and still have safe harbor and top-heavy protection for the short plan year ending mid-2023 because S is being acquired in a Code Section 410(b)(6)(C) transaction. B's TPA says I'm wrong about that, too."

"We are running into a situation with our recordkeeper involving the valuation date for QDROs. In the past a determination date was some date in the past chosen by the participant and alternate payee, and was usually the date the participant and spouse were separated or divorced. The AP's account was then valued by taking the balance as of the determination date, adjusting for earnings, contributions, withdrawals or whatever, and then splitting the account. The APs account could then be administered just like any other account; payment could be requested or deferred, investments chosen etc. Now the recordkeeper has unilaterally decided that the valuation date is the date of transfer so there are no earnings calculations needed. This is not what our QDRO procedures or models provide and we have a number of DROs in process which are expected to stipulate the prior method when they are submitted to us for approval. We are getting pushback from participants who want to divide the account based on a specific past date and who are unequipped to calculate several year's worth of investment earnings on their own. The recordkeeper is calling their new process "industry standard" but in my years in the industry as a TPA the majority of my cases have used the prior method. Do agree this is industry standard? I have not been a TPA in 10 years so perhaps the industry has moved on without me knowing?"

"The client employees few salaried employees and a bunch of hourly-paid employees. Many hourly employees are scheduled to work 1200 -1400 hours per year. Is it a "reasonable classification" to define the "hourly employees who are scheduled to work less than 2,080 hours per annum" as an "Ineligible Class"? I do not need them for testing as my plan would pass the ABPT with very comfortable margin. What are the issues with my thinking? Let's assume there won't be any employees who are scheduled to work part-time but later show up with a gazillion of hours."