Leaderboard

Does this IRS guidance from 2009 help? I am NOT an expert on it but I remembered there was some old guidance and I got this from Google. You now know 100% of what I know but this might or might not point you in the right direction. http://www.retire.prudential.com/media/managed/PruPA-UnusedPTO.pdf https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rr-09-31.pdf

Well, this might be one where it is worth asking to speak to the agent's supervisor and have a discussion. Many years ago we had a professional tennis start (name would be known to everyone) and we used an NRA of (as I remember) 35 back when there were NOT the actuarial adjustments for early dates. We got it approved with little trouble after a discussion with higher ups at IRS. If it is really obvious (like a football player or a basketball player) and your age is not obviously unreasonable (like, age 25), then you might be surprised that a conversation with a manager might be an easy solution. And that's because they have probably dealt with the issue before. There are lots of new agents who are just following what it says in "the book" and are not using their heads at all; meanwhile, managers want to get plans OFF their desks (or the desks of their agents) because that is how they are measured. It's worth a shot.

As far as Im concerned, the usage of "stop" or "suspend" doesn't matter. For our purposes, both of them means deferrals cease when the participant elects to do so. As an administrative matter, I wouldn't start (or restart) deferrals until the participant enters into a new deferral agreement, so stop/suspend simply means stop at this point and nothing more. Most of my plans are drafted to allow for changes every payroll. I have a few plans that restrict it to quarterly but that is about it. If it makes sense to go with payroll period changes rather than quarterly, then amend away, but you certainly don't have to just because a participant might want it.

Yeah, what he said I was going to suggest writing a list of names: Michael Jordan, Peyton Manning, Muhammad Ali, Kobe Bryant, Barry Bonds and mentioning that all of these retired prior to Age 62. I would imagine the IRS's response would be that their endorsement deals didn't necessarily stop at that age. I think Mike's approach is better. Good Luck!

When you give up trying to satisfy the IRS on this issue, consider negotiating a change to NRD 62 with subsidized early retirement at what ever age you want. PPA funding can then be based on the actuary's best estimate and the deductions will not change. Good luck.

Yeah it doesn't make a lot of sense. And one has to apply in May or June for the September expiration date. And when your completing the renewal form, if you discover your short CEs, well it's already too late to make any up. Bizarre

Thanks. That is what I thought but wanted to confirm. Maybe they should give a CE class on how to interpret their CE requirements :).

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SOLO 401(K) PLAN. Now for the statement that will floor many of you: there is also NO SUCH THING AS A 401(K) PLAN. All 401(k) plans are simply profit sharing plans (by law) that have a feature called a Cash or Deferred Option. Guess where you find the CODA in the Internal Revenue Code? Give yourself a pat on the head if you guessed IRC Section 401(k)! The "solo 401(k)" is a marketing gimmick; usually with a disabled plan document that has the wrong provisions in it and will immediately blow up if the client actually hires someone. Of course, the client thinks that employee isn't eligible because.. .wait for it.. "IT'S A SOLO 401(K) so only I am in it!" You don't amend a profit sharing plan into a 401(k) plan; you amend the profit sharing to ADD a 401(k) feature (a CODA). OK; off the soapbox......

And, there is NO difference with regard to the protection because there is no such thing as a "solo 401(k) plan". It is a marketing gimmick; I dare you to find it in the code. It is simply a 401(k) plan that does not have (YET) any rank in file employees. The shame of it is that those entities that market these with "bare bone documents" have no clue what happens when the employer actually does hire someone and they have to become eligible but the deficient plan document no longer works and just screws up the client.

I wasn't sure either what Mike meant, until I parsed what happened. You can CERTAINLY amend a safe harbor plan in December of 2017 to change the safe harbor contribution for 2017. The problem is that you have just blown up the safe harbor status for 2017. And there is the question of what happens to the enhanced match for any time prior to the amendment (I would vote you cannot change it and argue that 411(d)(6) rights have attached). But now, you have added a 3% contribution for 2017 as well, and I think you are stuck with that as well (since we are now in 2018 and you can't take that away either). Therefore, you are stuck with BOTH! AND a plan that has to be tested on an ADP basis and that has an incorrect safe harbor notice for 2018 (another issue to be dealt with). And, you have a lawsuit against ADP or Paychecks. And you have a great story to tell all your clients why you never have payroll firm to plan admin and why you never have the butcher at Whole Foods do brain surgery!