Leaderboard

Not sure the changes are optional. The new Uniform Tables will be issued to be used for 2021 RMD's and they take into account the later age requirement for those under the old and the new rules. I understand it is difficult to revise a current process to include both RMD groups but I didn't perceive it as anything other than mandatory?

I think this can be self-corrected as an "Excess Allocation" under Rev. Proc. 2019-19 sec. 6.06(2). You would remove the money from the spouses' accounts and put it in an unallocated* account. No further employer contributions may be made until the money in the unallocated account is allocated to participants. *The unallocated account is similar to a forfeiture account but is not actually forfeiture. For example, true forfeitures may be used to pay plan expenses, but this unallocated account may not.

Never knew about it until a couple of weeks ago when it was mentioned in a SECURE Act summary, and discussed then. Since learning about it, we have prepared a couple. If we don't do it no one else will.

When I first started my TPA in 1986, we used to do it via a sign in sheet, like attendance at a meeting. Did that for a couple of years until I had a client go through an IRS audit. Found out it was complete overkill and haven't done it since.

It is people who died after 12/31/19. Your bene can still get RMD stretch.

Cannot take a loan from a non-qualified DCP. Possibly the plan document provides for early distribution in the event of an unforeseeable emergency. Other options - reduce or eliminate deferrals for the next plan year. Find another source of funds - bank loan, 401k loan, loan from employer etc.

Can you confirm this new provision applies to IRAs too? I think it does however it was not mentioned in any of the replies Also, I am hoping someone can add some clarification to the "repay" provision - 1. What is the timing to repay the distribution? 60 days? 2. Does the distribution have to repaid to the same plan/account it was distributed from? 3. does the "repayment" get deposited as after-tax dollars? Or do we need to wait for the IRS to issue regulations? Thank you

Although what Congress wrote is awkward (in many ways), it seems a qualified birth or adoption distribution, if the plan provides it, can be an exception from a distribution restriction that is a condition for a plan’s Federal income tax treatment. While rocknrolls2 fairly quoted the portion for a 401(k) arrangement, the whole sentence is: Any qualified birth or adoption distribution shall be treated as meeting the requirements of sections 401(k)(2)(B)(i), 403(b)(7)(A)(ii), 403(b)(11), and 457(d)(1)(A). Also, the statute includes: If a distribution to an individual would (without regard to clause (ii) [limiting an individual’s aggregate amount to $5,000]) be a qualified birth or adoption distribution, a plan shall not be treated as failing to meet any requirement of this title [title 26 of the United States Code, which is the unofficial compilation of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986] merely because the plan treats the distribution as a qualified birth or adoption distribution, unless the aggregate amount of such distributions from all plans maintained by the employer (and any member of any controlled group which includes the employer) to such individual exceeds $5,000. Many practitioners interpret those sentences and related text to permit a plan to provide a qualified birth or adoption distribution as a kind of distribution that does not tax-disqualify a plan for allowing a too-early distribution. As Larry Starr said, a birth-or-adoption distribution is not a plan’s benefit until the plan (somehow) provides such a distribution. As Mike Preston suggests, some administrators might write a summary of material modifications (or a revised summary plan description) to describe a plan provision that—even if not yet in a document to be amended later under a remedial-amendment period (including one provided by § 601 of the SECURE division of the appropriations Act)—is somehow a provision the plan’s sponsor sufficiently adopted that the plan’s administrator may communicate the provision. At least for an ERISA-governed plan, an administrator might want the plan’s sponsor to make some writing—even if not one people call a plan document—to help comply with ERISA’s § 402(a)(1), which requires that a plan “be established and maintained pursuant to a written instrument.”; § 402(b)(4), which requires that a plan “specify the basis on which payments are made . . . from the plan.”; and § 404(a)(1), which commands a fiduciary, including an administrator, to “discharge [the fiduciary’s] duties with respect to a plan . . . in accordance with the documents and instruments governing the plan[.]” (I recognize that for many plans the sponsor and the administrator are closely related or even the same person. Yet, recognizing the distinct roles can be helpful in thinking through the steps.) An ERISA-governed plan’s fiduciary must administer a retirement plan according to the documents that govern the plan, not a document that might be made later. Even if a sponsor’s writing lacks the style and formalities of what some might think of as the “official” plan documents, the sponsor’s writing might be a document that governs the plan (until a plan amendment supersedes it).

You don't have to form one, you ARE a multiple employer plan based on your facts. If the administrative savings are worth it, you can operate as such, but will need to apply ERISA's and the Code's various rules applicable to multiple employer plans.