All Activity

By quoting (and hyperlinking to) a paragraph from a Treasury rule, I don’t suggest it as support for or against any interpretation. Rather, I suggest only that an interpreter (perhaps one like the webinar speaker WCC described) might consider it in forming one’s interpretation. That said, few interpreters are ready to pursue an interpretation contrary to Treasury’s explanation in the rules’ preamble.

I'm sure this has been asked. I have an owner who is terminating his small 4-employee Profit Sharing plan, and turns 73 in 2026. typically we would make sure that a participant takes their (generally already existing annual) RMD prior to rolling the remaining funds, however he technically has until 4/1/27 for the 1st RMD. Is it ok to let him defer and allow all monies to transfer to an IRA now? this is assuming he may want to defer, and I'd like to have an answer ready, partly for myself and any future scenarios. He may not care and want it this year. He has a significant balance so may not want two taxable required distributions in 2027. thanks in advance for any insight!

for Pattison Pension (Albuquerque NM / Hybrid)View the full text of this job opportunity

I believe it would be Code 7. Under the applicable regulations, excess designated Roth contributions are taxed twice if not timely corrected. Treas. Reg. § 1.402(g)-1(e)(8)(iv) provides, if not corrected by April 15 of the following year, the distribution from a Roth account of the excess Roth contribution and the attributable earnings are taxable no matter when they are later distributed, subject to the normal limitations on distribution of elective deferrals, despite the fact that the distribution is from a Roth account. Treas. Reg. § 1.402(g)-1(e)(8)(iv) regarding distributions after the correction period states: So it seems that while a normal distribution from a Roth 401(k) is not taxed at distribution at all, an over contribution is taxed in the year received.

@WCC, I agree, that doesn't seem right. The explanation is long, but this is what the final Regulation says in Section I under the Summary of Comments and Explanation of Revisions section, which seems to clearly indicate that a plan can not require all catch-up contributions to be Roth for everyone: "While proposed §1.401(k)-1(f)(5)(iii) would permit a deemed Roth election with respect to a participant who is subject to the Roth catch-up requirement, the proposed regulations did not include a rule permitting a plan to require that all participants’ catch-up contributions be designated Roth contributions. Footnote 16 of the preamble to the proposed regulations explained that, for a participant who is not subject to the Roth catch-up requirement, allowing a plan design that requires all participants’ catch-up contributions to be designated Roth contributions would be inconsistent with the language of section 402A(b)(1), which provides that a designated Roth contribution must be elected by an employee “in lieu of all or a portion of elective deferrals the employee is otherwise eligible to make.”8 Notwithstanding the explanation in footnote 16 of the preamble to the proposed regulations, commenters requested that the final regulations permit a plan to require that all participants’ catch-up contributions be made as designated Roth contributions, regardless of a participant’s FICA wages for the preceding calendar year. Commenters argued that permitting this plan design would simplify implementation of the Roth catch-up requirement, would reduce section 414(v)(7) failures, and, in some cases, could avoid a perception of unfairness (for example, in the case of a participant who is not subject to the Roth catch-up requirement under section 414(v)(7)(A) because the participant did not have FICA wages in the prior year, but had wages from self-employment for the preceding calendar year that exceeded the Roth catch-up wage threshold). With respect to section 402A(b)(1), commenters argued that provision merely defines the term “qualified Roth contribution program,” does not explicitly prohibit a plan from requiring that all catch-up contributions be made as designated Roth contributions, and permits an employee to have designated Roth contributions “made on the employee's behalf” under the plan. The Treasury Department and the IRS do not agree with the commenters’ characterization of the language in section 402A(b)(1) as merely a definition. In addition, the language of section 402A(b)(1) permitting an employee to have designated Roth contributions “made on the employee’s behalf” under a plan was added to section 402A(b)(1) by section 604(b) of the SECURE 2.0 Act. Section 604 of the SECURE 2.0 Act permits certain nonelective contributions and matching contributions that are made after December 29, 2022, to be designated Roth contributions. Thus, this language reflects the distinction between designated Roth contributions that are made in lieu of pre-tax elective deferrals and those that are made in lieu of nonelective or matching contributions. Further, section 414(v)(7)(A) refers to designated Roth contributions as defined under section 402A(c)(1), and, under section 402A(c)(1), the term “designated Roth contribution” includes “any elective deferral…which is excludable from gross income of an employee without regard to [section 402A], and the employee designates (at such time and in such manner as the Secretary may prescribe) as not being so excludable.” Thus, under section 402A(c)(1), an employee must be permitted to make a pre-tax elective deferral in order for the employee to designate such a pre-tax elective deferral as a designated Roth contribution. Although the requirement under section 402A(b)(1) and (c)(1) that an employee be eligible to make pre-tax elective deferrals in order to elect to make designated Roth contributions in lieu of all or a portion of those pre-tax elective deferrals is not consistent with the Roth catch-up requirement under section 414(v)(7)(A) in the case of a participant who is subject to the Roth catch-up requirement, final regulation §1.414(v)-2(b)(6) resolves this inconsistency by providing that the Roth catch-up requirement applies notwithstanding section 402A(b)(1) and (c)(1). However, there is no inconsistency in the case of a participant who is not subject to the Roth catch-up requirement. Accordingly, the final regulations do not include a rule permitting a plan to require that all participants’ catch-up contributions be designated Roth contributions. 8 Section 402A(b)(1) provides that “[t]he term ‘qualified Roth contribution program’ means a program under which an employee may elect to make, or to have made on the employee's behalf, designated Roth contributions in lieu of all or a portion of elective deferrals the employee is otherwise eligible to make, or of matching contributions or nonelective contributions"

The answer is yes. The issue is under the DOL rules. The no-later-than-30-days deadline really doesn't apply in the eyes of the DOL, the key phrase is "as soon as they can be reasonably segregated." You should review the rules under the DOL Voluntary Fiduciary Compliance Program (VFCP). The DOL VCFP website states: The latest iteration under the DOL rules can be accessed at Federal Register :: Voluntary Fiduciary Correction Program. For older versions see https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/67-FR-15062; https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/70-FR-17516; https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/71-FR-20262. The VFCP general website can be accessed at Voluntary Fiduciary Correction Program | U.S. Department of Labor. The correction might be fairly complex if as your post states this issue has been occurring for perhaps every payroll period in the last 6 years. Also, though there is a 7-day safe harbor, when correcting under VFCP, earnings are to be calculated from the date the deferrals were actually withheld from the affected employees' wages (not the end of the 7-day safe-harbor period).

Thank you. We are using our Adoption Agreement so there is no issue with the structure. We just wanted to confirm that one document for the Adopting entities would be fine and there is no need for 2 documents / 2 separate plans.

They are likely a control group so one plan with each LLC adopting should be fine. Even if not a CG they could do that as a multiple employer plan. However, if the desire is to use a vendor's solo-k product, need to make sure it accommodates whatever structure/LLC relationship you have.

Wife has an LLC with no employees. Husband has an LLC with no employees. Both own 100% of their own LLCs. The Wife's LLC pays the Husband's LLC. It is not clear if the Husband has any other source of income in his LLC. They both would like to set up a solo 401k plan. Do they need 2 separate plans or could both LLCs adopt the plan and only set up one plan?

for Wells Thomas, LLC (Branford CT / West Hartford CT)View the full text of this job opportunity

for FMI Retirement Services (Huntington NY)View the full text of this job opportunity

for Alerus (Remote)View the full text of this job opportunity

The employer and the plan’s administrator (whether these are the same person or distinct persons) might—after considering each’s lawyer’s, certified public accountant’s, or enrolled agent’s advice—consider whether to check the facts of what happened, including what deferral election the participant properly made, made invalidly, or made not at all. Might the “off-cycle” not have been compensation from which an actual and proper deferral could be made? Do the documents governing the plan grant the administrator authority to refuse a participant contribution because it would exceed a deferral limit? Does a salary-reduction agreement or other form state that the employer will or may interpret a deferral election as limited to the lesser of the amount specified or the largest amount that would not exceed an applicable deferral limit? Even if not expressly stated in any writing, might the plan administrator’s interpretation of that kind be a prudent interpretation of the documents governing the plan? To the extent a participant contribution was not sent to the plan’s trust and was not a proper deferral, might the employer make its Form W-2 wage report follow that truth? Is there time to find the law, plan provisions, and facts with time for the employer to do its wage report by next Monday? This is not advice to anyone.

The IRS on its website says you can file electronically or file on paper. All of the IRS rules about counting 10 forms to get to mandatory electronic filing apply to filing payroll forms (W2s, 1099s...) and to filing a Form 5500EZ. Here is another link https://accountably.com/irs-forms/f5558/ that does a good job talking about 5558s in plain English.

Thanks Paul. I looked at the instructions before I originally posted, and noted they're silent on any e file requirement. Out of curiosity I looked just now at the 1099-NEC instructions and they do specifically cite the e file requirement. I realize we can't rely on IRS instructions as being law. There are several public commentators (CPA firms for example) that are stating e file is mandatory for Form 5558. I realize they don't necessarily know the law either. I understand the IRS would prefer e file, I'm just hoping to find some verification that Form 5558 e file is actually not mandatory. The concern is would the IRS (or DOL) possibly reject a paper filed Form 5558 for a Plan Sponsor that had issued more than 10 W-2's, 1099's, etc for any given tax year.

Beyond Internal Revenue Code § 105(h), one might consider whether what each plan provides or omits, or what each combination of the § 414(b)-(c)-(m)-(n)-(o) employer’s plans provide or omit, discriminates by race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or another applicable civil-rights factor. An employee-benefits lawyer might want to coordinate with one’s firm’s labor and employment practice.

Consider: Plans limiting pre-tax catch-up contributions for employees not subject to section 414(v)(7). The rules of [26 C.F.R. § 1.414(v)-2(b)(3)(i)] also apply to a plan that includes a qualified Roth contribution program and, in accordance with an optional plan term providing for aggregation of wages under [26 C.F.R.] § 1.414(v)-2(b)(4)(ii), (b)(4)(iii), or (b)(4)(iv)(A), does not permit pre-tax catch-up contributions for one or more employees who are not subject to section 414(v)(7). 26 C.F.R. § 1.414(v)-2(b)(3)(ii) https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-26/part-1/section-1.414(v)-2#p-1.414(v)-2(b)(3)(ii).

It is not exempt since the CODA was effective after 12/31/2022. Must be an EACA. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-24-02.pdf Q. A-1: When is a qualified CODA established for purposes of determining whether the qualified CODA is excepted under section 414A(c)(2)(A)(i) of the Code from the requirements related to automatic enrollment (that is, whether the qualified CODA is a pre-enactment qualified CODA)? A. A-1: For purposes of section 414A(c)(2)(A)(i), a qualified CODA is established on the date plan terms providing for the CODA are adopted initially. This is the case even if the plan terms providing for the CODA are effective after the adoption date. For example, if an employer adopted a plan that included a qualified CODA on October 3, 2022, with an effective date of January 1, 2023, then the qualified CODA would have been established on October 3, 2022 (that is, before December 29, 2022), even though the qualified CODA was not effective until after December 29, 2022.

The instructions for the 5558 don' say anything about being mandatory but do say: What’s New Beginning January 1, 2025, Form 5558 can be filed electronically through EFAST2 or can be filed with the IRS on paper. and the IRS website also says so: https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/form-5500-corner

I am finding conflicting advice as to whether Form 5558 e file is mandatory, if the Plan Sponsor otherwise has 10+ W-2's, 1099's etc that they file. I realize that e file capability became a reality last year. My question is, is e file mandatory when the Plan Sponsor has 10+ information returns that it files. Thank you.

for JHBenefits, LTD (Columbus OH / Hybrid)View the full text of this job opportunity

If CODA provisions are added at this time to a large profit sharing plan that was originally effective in 2021, does it have to be an EACA or is it exempt from this requirement because the plan was initially effective prior to 2022? Thanks in advance for any assistance.

Ordinarily, the 5-year rule is the 12/31 of the year containing the 5th anniversary of the participant's death. If death was x/x/2020 then 5th anniversary is x/x/2025 and entire benefit should have been distributed by 12/31/2025. However, and this comes from the IRS website where you can essentially treat 2020 as if it never existed. The excerpt below says inherited IRAs but earlier language also refers to retirement plans and I can't see them saying 2020 disappears only for IRAs. https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/coronavirus-relief-for-retirement-plans-and-iras Distributions from inherited IRAs are not required in 2020. If you were required to take a distribution within 5 years following the year of the account holder’s death, 2020 does not count toward the 5 years. So, you would essentially have six years, instead of five, to distribute the inherited IRA. Also, if the account holder died in 2019, you would normally be required to begin taking distributions by the end of 2020 to be able to take distributions over your lifetime. Since 2020 does not count, you have until the end of 2021 to begin taking distributions over your lifetime.

You've got it. Forget the CG and just think 2 HCEs and 2 NHCEs where you cover 1 of each. Yes, if the covered NHCE leaves then you would need to add the other ER and its NHCE.

That is my understanding.