Leaderboard

So I have been playing with amortization schedules to try and figure out what it would look like taking into account the suspension. After playing with it a little bit it became clear (to me anyway) that essentially what you would do is: 1) Accumulate interest until the 1/1/2021. 2) Figure out the payment to pay it off to zero by the end of the 6 year term. If the participant, pre-suspension, had a larger payment then just start that larger payment. If its a new loan and they want to pick a higher dollar amount then let them. I know the statute talks about suspending the payments and resuming them after a 1 year delay and then amortizing, etc. I tried to play around with all of it and the differential in the payments each way I tried it was minimal. Payments are essentially only being delayed for 9 months, but we get an extra year to pay it off. I attahed my amortization schedule. If someone has a different take on how this works let me know. Am Sched.pdf

Wish. Granted.

Would the mandatory 20% withholding now apply for withdraws from Qualified Plans? RMDs were are not eligible to be rolled over so the mandatory withholding rules did not apply. Since there is no RMD, does the mandatory withholding rules apply for all distributions for 2020, no matter the age of the PPT (outside of distributions not eligible for rollover)?

I agree with mattmc82. The CARES Act does not impact if/how many loans are allowed by the plan document. If the plan does not allow loans, it could choose to allow them at this time, or not. If a plan only allows three loans (or one loan), the CARES Act doesn't change that. A Plan Sponsor could certainly choose to amend the number of loans allowed at one time, but the CARES Act does not do this automatically.

All RMDs suspended for 2020

Yes. I see nothing in the legislation (or reason) it wouldn't be.

There is more going on in that question than you might realize. You would best to go and ask someone at the company to help you through the facts and get the best answer. Without knowing how vesting is computed: Is it elapsed time or do you have to work 1,000/year to get a Year of Service for Vesting? If it is a 1,000/year plan which is the most common what years (assuming the plan is a calendar year plan) did you work 1,000 hours or more? As a very general rule, and there are a lot of assumptions going on here, I would expect such a person to be 40% vested the day they come back regarding any new money/shares allocated to them. Depending on the facts they might have moved up to 60% or 80% vested because of the additional years worked. It would fairly rare to see the person reset to 0% upon their return. But ONCE AGAIN WITHOUT SEEING THE PLAN DOCUMENT AND KNOWING ALL THE FACTS no one can say for sure. If you paid back any of the prior distribution to you that can make the situation more complex but such paybacks are rare. So talk to your former employer and have them explain it to you is your best bet.

Pretty much how I read it, although from the way it was presented I thought it was some other kind of direct seller. We looked into the possibility of this once for a real estate agency and decided it was "not worth it" (polite terminology for "insane").

A perfect example of why our loans (the very few we have) always require salary deduction repayment. How was this set up that allows the employee to skip his payments? Sounds like he is a real PIA!

i see nothing that overrides that. cares act provisions are discretionary so the employer could decide on changing loan policy

Darn, CBZ. I forgot about everyone getting the GW. I did say MAY help, lol.

You can't use component testing for the gateway, sadly. If you're cross testing any component then the whole plan has to pass the gateway. There are two alternatives to the gateway. You don't have to satisfy the gateway if either 1. the plan has broadly available allocation rates, or 2. the plan has age-based allocation rates that are based on either a gradual age or service schedule, or a uniform target benefit allocation. It is unlikely that you will satisfy either #1 or #2 - this is why most plans just do the gateway. The only other way out would be if you could test the plan on allocation rates (with or without permitted disparity). Or, I suppose, if it turned out that the employment agreement you mentioned, which promises 3% of pay, was actually a collective bargaining agreement and retirement benefits were the subject of good faith negotiation.

There is a certain hassle factor and cost to all of this. In my world, "a small business completely unaffected by the virus so far" would not be adding any coranavirus provisions and thus wouldn't have to consider this Q.

I disagree. I'm no lawyer but this didn't make sense to me so I reviewed the case...ok, I read a review of the case. I believe that drawing an inference from that case to this situation is not valid. The Kennedy case was one where an ex-spouse gave up her right to any pension benefits as part of a divorce settlement. But the participant did not change the beneficiary designation which named her as the primary beneficiary. Both she and the estate filed claims and the plan decided she was the beneficiary. I won't get into the legal reasoning but it went to the Supreme Court and they sided with the plan - she was the beneficiary because the beneficiary designation said she was, and a separate document waiving her rights had no impact. The first sentence of the (Trucker Huss) review said: "In a victory for plan sponsors and administrators, the Supreme Court ruled recently in Kennedy v. Plan Administrator for DuPont Savings and Investment Plan, 129 S.Ct. 865 (2009), that retirement plans may rely on the plan terms and beneficiary designation forms in determining the proper recipient of survivor benefits." (My emphasis in bold.) Plan terms in the instant case say wife is beneficiary. No ifs and or buts; the designation signed by the participant before the marriage is simply invalid.