Leaderboard

Since April 20, 1995, we've brought you the best in employee benefits on the web. Thank you to all our readers! Tell us what else we can do to help you -- we'd love to hear from you! -- Holly Horton, Lois Baker, and Dave Baker Via email: davebaker@benefitslink.com Or post a message onto this topic/thread using the green Reply to This Topic button above. If you don't see a green Reply to This Topic button above, you might not be a registered user yet -- just use the black Sign Up button in the top right corner of this page. There is no charge. Your email address and registration information will not be shared with any other parties. Or, if you're already a registered user but you don't see the green Reply to This Topic button, click on the link (it says "Existing user? Sign In") next to that Sign Up button.

Not on anybody's radar, as far as I can tell. The only audit relief being contemplated is the delay associated with 5500 due dates, if any.

Here is the language from 404a-5(c)(3)(i)(B): If there is a change to the information described in paragraph (c)(3)(i)(A) of this section [individual expenses charged to the participant's account], each participant and beneficiary must be furnished a description of such change at least 30 days, but not more than 90 days, in advance of the effective date of such change, unless the inability to provide such advance notice is due to events that were unforeseeable or circumstances beyond the control of the plan administrator, in which case notice of such change must be furnished as soon as reasonably practicable. I think passage of the CARES Act meets the standard of being unforeseeable/beyond the control of the plan administrator. Adding the loan provision might not be, but under the circumstances I agree it would do more harm than good to make participants wait the 30 days before making loans available.

Just be very careful you don't forget your OWN anniversary, or you might find yourself reading up on QDRO's...?

I just don't see option 2 being implemented in any of my plans. We either allow CRD distributions (and appropriately amend to adopt those provisions eventually) or we don't. If we don't, it's 20% withholding, but the participant will be able to treat it as a CRD on his own tax return and split the taxes over 3 years. The withholding is the withholding and he has to live with that.

Thanks Bill. II get what your saying. If the plan didn't allow for any other distributable event, then the participant can't make the plan amend to allow a CRD, which would be a new type of distributable event. But if the participant has a distributable event under current provisions, the distribution should be treated as a CRD for tax purposes if they are a qualified individual. The issue we are running into is that many of the recordkeepers forms are only available if the plan sponsor "opts in" and most of the forms have some sort of certification that the plan will be amended or are permitting any kind of CRD. Taking it a step further, for some recordkeepers, once the sponsor "opts in" they are processing CRDs for any participant that self certifies, even if the plan sponsor did not intend to allow an "inservice CRD". So either every qualified individual gets the special tax treatment, even if the plan was not intended to allow for a new distribution option, or no qualified individual gets special tax treatment. And in this context I'm only concerned about how the withholding is done. I know the QI has all the other tax benefits when they do their taxes.