Leaderboard

Yes Im not sure I see it that way. The fees usually can and should be estimated. Under 408b-2, I don't think it is enough to say "we get revenue sharing from many large record keepers". I believe you need to specify where it is coming from and how much you estimate that you will collect (or the formula if an amount cannot be estimated). I'm a bit rusty on 408b-2 though. With that information, the fiduciary knows what the service agreement calls for and what the TPA expects in revenue sharing. This is also a good argument against evergreen service agreements. Sometimes easier said than done. Id rather not deal with revenue sharing at allk to be honest. On some plans, we have negotiated with the fund company to have them discount their fee by the revenue sharing amount, and have the employer pay the fee. Less fees for the plan and the employer can deduct the expense. You need a plan with a lot of assets in order to get the big guys to do anything but standard procedure though.

They said they dont have anything but gave this list of vendors. I suppose they must know something good about them if they felt comfortable emailing me the names. Anyway, in case anyone else is looking for a solution here. http://www.languagealliance.com/ http://www.transperfect.com/ http://www.languageworks.com/ http://www.futurosolidousa.com/ (specifically Spanish employee benefits) http://www.perfecttranslations.com/

But none of those apply. The participant received nothing from the plan. The plan transferred the payment liability to an insurer. C'mon Larry, putting something in bold does not make it true...you know very well this is not a 1035 exchange. I fully expected that! Meh. Being fully convinced that this is not reportable I don't see the need. And then I go back to "how" - I suppose if you call it a rollover there is not harm, but it's not right. Likewise for a 1035 exchange.

Rev Rul 2019-19

There's a "'Cuz Stone Cold Said So" crack to be made by a wittier person than I, in the context of an Austin 3(16) question.

The IRS position is that the distribution has been paid and is a taxable event to the participant whose failure to negotiate does affect. That would lead me to believe it should now be part of the estate. DOL might opine otherwise, considering uncashed check still a plan asset, which obviously takes you in the other direction. IRS recently issued a Rev Ruling, not sure about DOL guidance but remember reading about their opinion concerning stale checks, but that's not quite your situation. I was my father-in-law's executor 25 years ago when he passed with an uncashed social security check or two and for the life of me I can't remember if I was able to deposit into his account (estate) or had to have reissued in three pieces to his surviving children. I think you have a taxable distribution to the now deceased participant and the funds are part of the estate.

I hesitate to disagree with the Great and Powerful Larry Starr but something tells me that if you purchase an immediate annuity and the insurer is effectively taking on the liability of making payments, that there is no 1099-R reporting. I can say with some certainty that it is not a rollover, so that leaves the Q of exactly how to report it if indeed you have to - the full amount but $0 taxable?

And just to offer a hint of a contrary opinion, I had a plan where my predecessor used to buy (single premium deferred) annuities for terms while everyone else was in a pooled account. I expressed some concerns about that (on PIX for those who remember that) and someone way more experienced than me provided a cite that it was in fact ok - the general idea being that you'd look at nondiscrimination within each group (actives and non). I might be able to find it if my life depended on it but it also might have been superseded by Revenue Ruling 96-47 cited above... ...but I agree with everyone else that it is, at best, a bad idea. I've learned over the years to say "no you can't do that" even if there is some possibility that they can. Explaining the pros and cons is counterproductive - it just leads to confusion when they want a straight answer. Don't let their logical but bad impulses drive you to find a way to satisfy them. (Sorry to lecture)

I generally recommend the whole plan go to cash in a termination. For one thing, you have a constantly moving target if you don't, and for another, everyone will remember the losses that might occur after the decision is made but no one will remember the gains.

RMDs are a calendar year requirement. You correctly used the last valuation date in 2018, 9/30, for the 2019 calc. The only effect of changing the FY is that for 2020, you will have a 12/31/2019 val date and therefore a 12/31 account balance to use in those calcs.

The IRS generally takes the position that a plan may not impose a “significant detriment” on a participant’s right to defer distribution of the participant's benefit under a plan under Section 411(a)(11). In Revenue Ruling 96-47, the IRS concluded that the disparate treatment of active and former plan participants with respect to investment diversification rights was a significant detriment. In that ruling, actives had full investment diversification rights while the inactives only had the right to invest in a money market fund. The situation in the original post seems analogous to the ruling and there may be a significant detriment.

Hunter, I'll jump in on this to try to get the conversation started for you. There are some other threads in 401k Topics on this type of situation, so dig in and research what you can. I don't like entry defined as payroll period. It becomes messy. I prefer to say the employee becomes eligible 10/1 and each paycheck after 10/1 would have deferrals withheld. I think of this topic with this logic. When does the employee become a participant and when do they get paid. I don't normally chase the pay periods, because the pay periods get me to the questions you are asking. I want the w-2 as my best friend, so whatever is on the w-2 for deferrals is the total I want to use for the testing. Otherwise, I may be removing a payroll from the beginning of the year and adding a payroll at the end of the year. (or vice versa) I find this to be inefficient. How is the plan handling newly eligible and timing now? I think you would want to stay consistent. But to answer your direct question as you stated it. First date of entry payroll period was 10/27. The first date of check for this payroll period was 11/15. I would have payroll start withholding for the 11/15 paycheck. Others may have a different opinion and that's cool. I would just try to stay consistent in the process.

We recently worked with a 401(k) plan provider to draft a special enrollment amendment designed to suspend/extend auto-enroll during the transition to a new recordkeeper. The amendment basically provides that unless the employee timely opts out or elects an alternative contribution percentage/investment election, auto-enrollment should occur as soon as administratively practicable following the 30-day period after the individual receives the auto-enroll notice (once the plan goes live). If anyone does end up entering the plan late, you can self-correct under EPCRS as long as you enroll the employee within 90 days of when he or she should have been enrolled. But obviously the goal of the special enrollment amendment would be to eliminate the need for any self-correction.

I probably shouldn't answer this since I don't do any auto enrollments, but I think you still have a 30 day election period, it's just that there is ALSO a blackout for moving money in the same period. They can still make an election on Dec 20, it just won't go into effect until the blackout is lifted. Does anyone think I have that right?

I don't buy it. I think it is reportable. This is from the 1099R instructions: Box 1. Shows the total amount you received this year. The amount may have been a direct rollover, a transfer or conversion to a Roth IRA, a recharacterized IRA contribution; or you may have received it as periodic payments, as nonperiodic payments, or as a total distribution. Report the amount on Form 1040 or 1040NR on the line for “IRAs, pensions, and annuities” (or the line for “Taxable amount”), and on Form 8606, as applicable. However, if this is a lump-sum distribution, see Form 4972. If you haven’t reached minimum retirement age, report your disability payments on the line for “Wages, salaries, tips, etc.” on your tax return. Also report on that line permissible withdrawals from eligible automatic contribution arrangements and corrective distributions of excess deferrals, excess contributions, or excess aggregate contributions except if the distribution is of designated Roth contributions or your after-tax contributions or if you are self-employed. If a life insurance, annuity, qualified long-term care, or endowment contract was transferred tax free to another trustee or contract issuer, an amount will be shown in this box and code 6 will be shown in box 7. First, I do agree that NOT reporting it will not incur any problems. But that does not make it the right answer. I question why they would have the info I highlighted in bold above if there was no need to report an annuity purchase and transfer to the participant. It seems to me to be the same exact issue. BTW, calling the IRS and asking what the right answer is should never be used as proof of the correct answer. You do not connect with a tax specialist who knows the intricate issues involved; they might figure since it isn't taxable anyway, why report it? But that is not necessarily an educated or a correct answer. Since it won't hurt to file the 1099R, we would file it (and have the two times in 35 years+ that someone has actually had an annuity purchased for them). Larry.