Leaderboard

My first question is what does the plan say? I haven't seen a pre-approved document, including VS, in a long time that allowed anything other than an irrevocable election meeting the requirements of 1.401(k)-1(a)(3)(v). As hinted at above, the problem with a revocable opt out is that it runs the risk of being considered a cash or deferred election under 1.401(k)-1(a)(3)(v). The current regs were effective 1/1/2006, so they predate the 2008 opt out under discussion. If the opt out was not irrevocable, what did the doctor receive in exchange for opting out?

Mike can certainly correct me, but I think what he meant, as Kevin also mentions, is that the opt-out/waiver does NOT have to be irrevocable (unless of course that's all the document permits) If it isn't irrevocable, then it may be a deemed CODA, which has various implications for testing/limitations. Like Kevin, I haven't seen a pre-approved document (which is mostly what I see these days) for a long time that allows anything other than the irrevocable waiver/election.

Absolutely! But honestly some of these new requests are ridiculous. I'm not opposed to change. I'm opposed to regulators who possess not the ability to view the world from a vantage point of practicality and reality.

Let's see how many sponsors just say "you know what, never mind. I'll just terminate this thing." Tell ya one thing, I am all over pooled plans now... They are regulating these participant directed plans to the grave, literally...

And some of us will get to revel in the new Schedule J (Group Health Plan Information) as well. As much as I'd like to hang around for all this fun, I am old enough, and Feb. 3 is the 'GMK Out' date (ready or not as far as the wealth part goes)..

I`m sure there are a lot of accounting firms and CPAs who don't want that "account balance only" rule instituted.