Leaderboard

DAVE--- Thanks--your insight is valuable--- Really dumb q--I'm having trouble finding the search engine---Does not have anything to do with the fact that I grew up as a Cleveland Indians fan and Browns fan and lived about 10 minutes from the Cavs stadium ? Thanks-- BOB

rp-19-19 New.pdf This copy should have retained the original formatting but with added page numbers in the TOC. You should also be able to click the line in the TOC and have it take you to the page in question. I'll probably make a re-formatted one with less pages and TOC that goes down 5 levels (Part 1 / Section 1 / .01 / (1) / (a)) but I'm not sure when I'll have time to do it.

I used to work for a consulting firm that prepared "conversion minutes" to convert a DB into a DC plan as long as the DC retained the same BRF. No new plan, still #001, name change of plan and account, from which individual accounts established according to the PVVABs. I add this was only done on a one life plan.

I agree with my immediate predecessor responder. I respectfully dissent a whole lot from at least one of the prior commentators. First, the QJSA/QPSA provisions must be used by every pension plan, i.e., both DB and money purchase DC plans. Second, the QJSA/QPSA provisions must be used for any other plan (i.e., profit sharing plans) unless the drafter takes advantage of the exception granted to such plans by drafting the plan to contain (or the AA option election that activates) the three conditions stated in the regulation for the profit sharing plan to be exempt from the QJSA/QPSA rules. The first condition is that 100% of the participant's account balance is the spousal death benefit. Both of my enumerated statements are right out of the first sentences of Regulation 1.401(a)-20 Q&A#3. You should try to find the "no-QJSA/QPSA" provisions in the plan. If you have a DC basic plan document with a QJSA/QPSA Section, and you do not see that non-QJSA/QPSA language in that Section, then there will be another Section with those provisions, and in that case, there should also be an AA option referring to the latter Section, and which would need to be selected if there was to be no QJSA/QPSA). For the basic plan document, a good search term is "412" because the plan most likely mimics the regulation, i.e., "for plans not subject to 412,..." The regulation is copied below. That means that for profit sharing rule that contains the three provisions in the cited regulation for the account balance to be free of the QJSA/QPSA rules, the new spouse is the beneficiary unless that spouses waives his or her right to 100% of the participant's account balance. I agree with the statement that 100% of all death benefits must go to the beneficiary, but the term "beneficiary" will be defined by the plan to first confer spousal benefits and then refer the employer to examine the designation form if the spouse has so consented to non-spouse beneficiaries. It sounds like the participant made the assumption that the old designation would survive. Not so. Just like participants should re-do designation forms immediately upon divorce (so as not to inadvertently leave their ex as still being the beneficiary they specifically designated), they should re-do them immediately upon marriage, at least if there are to be non-spouse beneficiaries. In the absence of a QDRO saying otherwise, the old designation form must yield to the language in the PS/K plan that likely states something along the regulatory lines of: (1) The plan provides that the participant's nonforfeitable accrued benefit is payable in full, upon the participant's death, to the participant's surviving spouse (unless the participant elects, with spousal consent that satisfies the requirements of section 417(a)(2), that such benefit be provided instead to a designated beneficiary); (2) The participant does not elect the payment of benefits in the form of a life annuity; and (3) With respect to the participant, the plan is not a transferee or an offset plan. (See Q&A 5 of this section.)

khn, my guess is that this is something that would create a problem with service providers, but that's just a guess and of course I don't have all facts. You say you are looking for board resolutions/minutes. From a legal standpoint, if they exist and reflect board action before the end of 2016, I think you'd be in much better shape. If there are no board resolutions or other record of board action in 2016, then you may find the issue of whether you can correct this in VCP or with a non-VCP voluntary closing agreement controversial among practitioners. I seem to have recalled seeing statements from IRS that the one thing you can't correct in VCP is failure to adopt, or at least failure to adopt a 401(k) where you have a CODA. My guess, nevertheless, is that you could fix in VCP or with a non-VCP voluntary closing agreement, but that is only a guess, because I've never had exactly that case. Maybe folks who have dealt with this situation in VCP will let us know their experience. The reason I think the IRS at least should allow this to be fixed in VCP (besides just general principles of kindness and practicality) is that where you have an ineligible employer (e.g., a for-profit, separately incorporated bookstore on the campus of a university that adopts a 403(b), or a 100+ employer that adopts a SIMPLE), the IRS allows you to "correct" in VCP by just stopping the sponsorship of the wrong plan and starting the right plan. While that is different from not having signed your paperwork timely for the right plan, it's not a whole lot different. I think there was a recent discussion about this issue on this message board and several practitioners say they had handled in the past, under the old periodic determination letter system, by submitting new documents and calling them late amenders. That seems to me to have a number of issues and I am not recommending it (and based on experiences I have had with IRS DL folks, I frankly am surprised that it worked for anyone), but I mention it just as an example of what is out there.

Wait until the "failure to implement the deferral elections" for 9/15 issue comes into play, too! This'll be fun....

PenChecks sponsors it through ASPPA (and I think they do the same with NIPA). Lots of old links are dead with the new ASPPA website unfortunately. @Sammiemor you can find out more about the scholarship here https://www.asppa.org/penchecks-scholarship

I believe Derrin covered much of this here:https://benefitslink.com/cgi-bin/qa.cgi?n=214&db=qa_who_is_employer

I believe your statement is correct. I think one problem is the terminology of using gateway minimum. any dc plan that uses cross-testing is subject to a gateway (not gateway minimum) gateway minimum is simply the most common one used. but an age weighted plan is really no different than a plan with broadly available bands - you are simply using 1 year age differences rather than 3 or 5 or whatever. the broadly available is simply another gateway.