Leaderboard

I will keep beating this horse until it gives. Look at Notice 2005-92. It's not CARES Act guidance, but interprets the exact same statutory language in Section 103 of KETRA. Footnote 3, on page 14, reads: The Department of Labor has advised the Department of the Treasury and the Service that it will not treat any person as having violated the provisions of Title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), including the adequate security and reasonably equivalent basis requirements in ERISA section 408(b)(1) and 29 CFR 2550.408b-1, solely because the person made a plan loan to a qualified individual in compliance with KETRA section 103, Code § 72(p), and the provisions of this notice. I can't imagine the DOL now reversing course and asserting an ERISA violation based on a lack of adequate security, especially where doing so would render the statute's explicit loan increase illegal for anyone with a vested balance below $100,000.

You can go to your employer or to an attorney or to the DOL at this point and ask for help. But I don't have a lot of sympathy for someone that goes 5 years and doesn't look at a paycheck or question a w-2 or ask to see a statement or doesn't go online. It's incomprehensible to me to go that long.

If you are saying she was not married at the time of her benefit commencement, then your mother committed fraud and the plan should be informed. "My mom was married 1996 when she did the QJSA." - don't know what "did the QJSA" means? Maybe you are referring to a QPSA which confirms marital status in case a participant dies prior to retirement. Either way, this "doing" would not impact her retirement election because it happened more than 180 days prior to commencement. In other words, it is not a valid election of a form of payment. It was just informational. "Fast forward to divorce 2006....The divorce gave them each their own accounts" = apparently it really didn't since there was no QDRO. Although the divorce decree can require it, it doesn't actually happen without a QDRO. "When she retired 2011, she filled out her benefit elections", "They did say however that when she retired her election had named a “beneficiary “ for her ERISA QJSA pension and that her election form stated “married”" - this was fraud and should invalidate her election. That likely won't help you, but the plan should stop paying the "beneficiary" - although if a Joint and Survivor is permitted to non-spousal beneficiaries, the plan might take the position - no harm, no foul and keep paying the person she requested.

Agree with shERPA. Don't care about the ADP testing if we can get TH relief.

Not too concerned about ADP/ACP. Worst case some refunds to HCEs, not the end of the world. Far more significant is relief from TH minimum. Many key ees will have deferred in Jan/Feb with no concern about TH minimum due to the SH. Now the company has to stop the SH due to COVID-19, they may or may not be in business by the end of the year, they may be scrambling to stay in business and we are going to hit them with a required 3% TH? Not good.

https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/filing-and-payment-deadlines-questions-and-answers Updated FAQ on the Notice

From Thursday's BenefitsLink H&W Plans newsletter: https://benefitslink.com/news/index.cgi/view/20200319-156762