Leaderboard

No Dear, I only catalog your receipts to make sure there are no fraudulent charges.... Surely $350 at hair-salon is a fraudulent charge right?

Agree completely. Fiduciaries can obtain personal liability (E&O) coverage for their breaches and mistakes, to cover their personal liability to the plan, but that is different from ERISA plan bond that protects the plan from dishonesty among those who handle assets (but not the identity thieves who dupe them). Cybersecurity is a huge issue and scammers have been attacking retirement plan accounts because the oversight and diligence is typically not up to the level seen at banks and credit cards, and perpetrated frauds can often go undetected for a much longer time because many participants do not regularly look at their accounts. I know RKs, including our firm, are banding together and sharing best practices and other important information on attempted hacks to safeguard our industry and our clients' retirements. Personally, as someone who has been paranoid about security and identity theft for a while, I look at bank accounts, brokerage accounts, IRA, 401(k) almost every single day. My wife thinks it's to keep tabs on her spending - but I assure her it's not (well, maybe just a little).

Roger that, Bill. But my point was that in the OP, Parent owns 100% of Sub (cg there), and then, if the manager's stock is excluded, Sub owns 100% of Sub 1. So even if the attribution rules only give Parent 50% of Sub 1, you have a chain of 100% from Parent to Sub, and Sub to Sub 1.

Great, I'll have to catch that one since this is hot topic for sure.

No to the “just got tired part” because the participant has contractual rights once the loan is made. The ability to initiate a loan is not a protected benefit. That does not cover breaching the terms of an existing loan. As for calling a loan in accordance with its terms, that addresses the contract issue, but such a term is (a) pretty farfetched, especially in these days of off-the-shelf documents, and (b) partly because it is so farfetched, I would inquire (which I am not going to do) whether or not such term meets the applicable loan standards. Last time I paid attention, plan loans had to be commercially reasonable (shorthand). If the plan is terminating and liquidating, the contractual right does not prevent or change the tax consequences of distribution.

Anyone: Please tell me why a QACA - any QACA - does not automatically comply with the requirements for being a EACA. Disregard cosmetic issues like the EACA provisions call for a "EACA notice" and the QACA provisions call for a "QACA" notice. Yes, I know that only a EACA can have a refund feature, but tell me why a QACA fails to qualify for having a refund feature. If you cannot, then separate notices would end up saying the same thing, regardless of their name, so why not have one combined notice? It's true, escalation must start no lower than 3% for a QACA (if there is escalation), but that doesn't violate the EACA rules. Ditto the 10% maximum on escalated deferrals - that doesn't violate the EACA rules. The boilerplate regulatory uniformity requirements look the same to me for both a EACA and a QACA. The character of the automatic contributions as "safe harbor" contributions, and the minimum amount of such contributions for a QACA, all those things do not violate the EACA requirements. A QACA safe harbor notice will comply with the EACA notice rules, unless you can point out to me where I err. (None of this applies if the plan has a "maybe" QACA, which is not a QACA until the midyear amendment amends the plan into a definite QACA. My question deals with a plan that has a QACA on the first and every remining day of the plan year.) As you might have guessed, I think that the "pairing" of "EACA and QACA" is to make drafters comfortable with having a refund feature, but that such pairing is not technically necessary. But I am open to the possibility that I am overlooking something.

Sounds like you would not be filing "corrected" forms but instead would be filing "correct" forms late which will only serve to totally confuse the IRS 1094-C/1095-C processing systems. Best to wait for the inquiry from IRS and be ready to promptly respond with the "correct" forms and highly likely IRS will abate any non-filing or late filing penalties.