All Activity

From DOL website https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/about-ebsa/our-activities/resource-center/faqs/efast2-form-5500-processing

I have had it where it was an NHCE who wanted to do it. It was a married couple, and the NHCE was married to someone who made a gazillion dollars so they were looking to contribute the full 415 limit. And the plan sponsor was willing to accommodate (small employer).

Unless you’re also in the business of providing tax or legal advice we only provide a recommendation to seek such professional counsel.

QDROphile, thank you. My question presumes an adviser has advised her advisee to do the right thing. And that the adviser is not a preparer of, or otherwise associated with, a tax return or other act that supports an incorrect thing. Others’ observations?

Not to aid and abet the actions that the client chooses to pursue that the advisor has declared unlawful? It depends. Inter alia, see “zugzwang” and, for fun, the definition of “lawyer” in The Devil’s Dictionary.

We just received the 2025 SECURE 2.0 Amendment from ftWilliam. Most, if not all, of our clients will be going with the default selections in the amendment. Out of curiosity, are firms having their clients formally adopt the amendment now, or are most waiting until the required deadline of December 31, 2026? Thank you!

The underlining is not mine.

Q1 Beyond whatever tax law might provide about remedial-amendment periods: Nothing in SECURE 2019 or SECURE 2022 (or the IRS’s guidance about law other than ERISA’s title I) provides relief from ERISA’s commands that an employee-benefit plan “shall be established and maintained pursuant to a written instrument” and “specify the basis on which payments are made to and from the plan.” ERISA § 402(a)(1), 402(b)(4), 29 U.S.C. § 1102(a)(1), 1102(b)(4). Nothing in SECURE 2019 or SECURE 2022 excuses a fiduciary from her responsibility to administer an employee-benefit plan “in accordance with the documents and instruments governing the plan[.]” ERISA § 404(a)(1)(D), 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1)(D). One way some plan sponsors and plan administrators hope to follow those commands is to keep records of writings (including emails and other computer systems’ messages) by which the plan sponsor told its recordkeeper, third-party administrator, or other service provider which provisions to implement, or a service provider told its service recipient which provisions it treats as deemed adopted if the service recipient does not instruct otherwise. Some might argue that those writings, even if informal, are “written” and are “documents . . . governing the plan[.]” I’m unaware of a court decision that supports or rejects such an interpretation. About whether a deemed Roth-contribution election must be in “the” plan documents now or need not be until December 31, 2026, some might read the Treasury department’s recent rule to interpret § 401(k) and § 414(v)(7) as allowing a delay until December 31, 2026. Even if that’s a fitting interpretation for tax law, the Secretary of the Treasury lacks authority regarding ERISA §§ 402-404. Some might argue that service instructions, if written, are “documents . . . governing the plan[.]” Q2 About something that might be an ERISA command but that neither ERISA nor the Internal Revenue Code commands or expects as a plan provision, a plan sponsor might prefer to omit a plan-document provision (unless something is needed to negate or revise a plan-document provision that’s inconsistent with the ERISA command). But consider whether the plan’s administrator wants a revision of a recordkeeper’s, third-party administrator’s, or other service provider’s agreement. My observation about either question is not advice to anyone.

How confident are you that W was or became the beneficiary of H’s IRA? How confident are you that W did not take § 401(a)(9)-required distributions from other IRAs? (For IRAs, a minimum may be taken from any of the holder’s or beneficiary’s IRAs; it need not be taken from a particular IRA.) If W failed to take one or more years’ § 401(a)(9)-required distributions, does W’s personal representative want to file Form 5329 [https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f5329.pdf] and pay each additional tax? For which years, if any, does W’s personal representative have authority to file that tax return? Might “moved into an ‘estate account’” be a colloquial description of something that happened in the IRA custodian’s records but without creating a non-IRA account?

A few questions questions regarding SECURE Act amendments: 1. My understanding is that 401(k) plan documents have until December 31, 2026 to be amended for any secured act provisions, even if operationally implemented earlier (e,g, Roth catch-up elections implemented in 2025). Is this correct? 2. Are plan amendments required for: a. The annual paper statement requirement of Secure 2.0 Sec 338 - my inclination is that you wouldn't have to unless there were something in the plan document that suggested something to the contrary. b. The disclosures for eligible unenrolled participants requirements of Secure 2.0 Sec. 320 - again, my inclination is that you wouldn't have to unless there were something in the plan document that suggested something to the contrary. Thanks!

I have a similar question but a slight twist on the question. Plan is terminating 12/31/2025, distributions are expected to be paid and plan liquidated April/May of 2026. The participant turns 73 during 2026, in fact August 2026. RBD would be 4/1/2027 if the plan was still ongoing and the ppt has not retired (he is an HCE). At the time of plan distributions he is not yet 73. He is planning to elect a lump sum rollover. I am thinking because he has not reached his Age 73 birthday he is not subject to an RMD. Any thoughts?

"Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?"

Our firm might be able to help. I will send you a PM.

We have a small group of DB plans and work with an excellent actuary. Our plans are generally small but for one with several hundred participants. The sponsor wishes to start a new DB plan but would like it to look like their 401(k) - online access to see balance, process distributions online, etc. Does anyone know if Ascensus has such a product. I did a search on them and was directed to their subsidiary Future Plan. Thank you for any comments.

Lou S., thank you for mentioning professional-conduct standards. About the “alphabet soup” associations’ codes, does any call a member to do something beyond a duty to provide correct advice? If a client receives and considers the professional’s advice but decides to do what the professional believes is contrary to law, does the professional have any further responsibility?

We're going through this now, the employer Plan Sponsor has a change of mind after signing the Plan Documents, no Trust Account established, no funding. It is our interpretation that a Plan is established based on our reading of guidance that we can find from the PGGC addressing Title IV, "A plan is covered … upon the date of establishment or the effective date, whichever is later. Thus, your plan is covered on the date of establishment, which is normally the date on which the plan documents are executed.” Although this applies to PBGC coverage we feel this is a good interpretation of when a Plan is established. Additionally, ERISA Section 402(a)(1) requires a plan be established and maintained under a written document. In this case since we do have a written Plan Document there is a Plan and therefore needs to be formally terminated. This may be an ultra-conservative view and would appreciate if anyone else has a different view.

I would have been in jr high (what middle school was called in the '70s for you Gen Z) when Visicalc had its day. I seem to recall the name when you bring it up but I don't think I used it ever.

If you set the limitation year as the calendar year I believe it can be the full 12 months. After checking further I think Belgarath was correct that the short tax corporate tax year requires the compensation limit to be prorated.

If a trust account was never opened, was the plan really established? Don't have time to research that right now so just a thought.

I think something like that would be needed. I recently found this prior discussion on this board.

Can you allocate additional benefits anyway so that if you at least test on 415 pay everyone could come out equivalent?

They'll be allocated those zero dollars and LIKE it. (Zero value versus "null" value, if you've ever had a Crystal report come out crappy.)

for Compass (Remote / Stratham NH / Hybrid)View the full text of this job opportunity

Thank you!

We are helping a takeover client with a DFVCP filing. The EFAST site only goes back to 2009 filings which makes sense. When going to the DFVCP payment web site, it lists Forms 5500 going back to 2004 as "late filings found in EFAST at this time." Question is how are pre 2009 Forms showing up on the DFVCP site as being on the EFAST site, but they are not actually displayed on the EFAST site. Maybe the client filed electronically, but it is not displayed on the EFAST site? In any case how do we amend those pre-2009 Forms and submit under DFVCP? Hope someone has experience with this. Thank you!