Leaderboard

Mr. Peabody and his pet boy Sherman would be proud.

Just a follow up, the money had not gone back to my previous employer, the person giving me that information was wrong. It had just transferred to a different management company and if the person I spoke to had just told me that it would have saved me a lot of anxiety. All is good now.

To follow-up, I just received an updated JH form that does include an option to elect a percentage and removes the inservice only wording.

1. Maybe (see #3), but doing it mid-year would be a reduction in the safe harbor contribution, which puts you under the rules in 1.401(k)-3(g). 2. If the plan meets the requirements in 1.401(k)-3(g), the safe harbor contribution can be reduced mid-year, but the plan would not be safe harbor for that year. If they want to change during 2020 bad enough, it can be done along with a change in the plan year. 3. The definition of safe harbor compensation used must satisfy the requirements of 414(s). [1.401(k)-3)(b)(2)]. It does not have to be a 414(s) safe harbor definition. Some plan documents have a provision that if the safe harbor compensation definition used doesn't satisfy 414(s), it automatically changes to a specific definition that meets one of the 414(s) safe harbors. Without such a provision, you would need a corrective amendment if the safe harbor compensation definition used doesn't satisfy 414(s). I would expect most of the tips to be for NHCEs, which would make it very difficult to pass 414(s). I would look at prior years to see if the definition they want would have passed 414(s) if it had been used before doing the amendment. Otherwise, there may be an unpleasant surprise waiting down the road.

Pay the bonuses on 1/1/2021.

I agree with everything you said except for the last statement. I found that they actively chose not to add the credentials- that started me on this quest. We've had members in this community lose their credential status because of something as non-descriptas not paying their annual dues (actuary pocketed dues paid by his employer) to headline grabbers that would make one blanche. But here, this involves submission of documents to the SEC. Your recommendation wouldn't hold water here. On the other hand, I understand (and would like to the same) your user id.

Congrats!!

Congress granted the Secretary of Labor power to delay due dates, but not to change ERISA § 103’s command to engage an independent qualified public accountant. ERISA § 518 [29 U.S.C. § 1148], amended by CARES Act § 3607.

Congratulations and Thank you! Your work has been very important to a lot of people.

Happy Birthday and Thank You for this valuable resource!

Congrats!

Since the numbers you have from the employer are correct then I am at a loss. Could be a mistake. If I were you I would ask the question to both the PEO and employer. Do it in writing/email to have a trail. Something came to my mind, and it’s a stretch, but you mentioned the cobra costs are about 20% higher. 20% is a common stop-loss level. Is it possible you are looking at costs at an expected level and not adding in the agg?

I'm finding conflicting information here as well. The statute says "shall" but follows, to the letter, section 103 of the Katrina Emergency Tax Relief Act of 2005: https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/house-bill/3768/text (FWIW, the coronavirus-related distribution provisions of the CARES Act track section 101 of KETRA very closely.) Notice 2005-92 gave guidance on implementing both sections, which I imagine is similar to what we will get under the CARES Act. The notice doesn't outright say "under KETRA, the loan extension is optional," but section 5(b) of the notice very strongly implies that it is optional (e.g., "Thus, an employer is permitted to choose to allow this delay in loan repayments under its plan with respect to a qualified individual, and, as a result, there will not be a deemed distribution to the individual under § 72(p)" and "If a qualified employer plan suspends loan repayments during the suspension period, the suspension will not cause the loan to be deemed distributed even if, due solely to the suspension, the term of the loan is extended beyond five years" and "If an employer, under its plan, chooses to permit a suspension period that is less than the suspension period described above, the employer is permitted to extend subsequently the suspension period, but not beyond December 31, 2006." See also the example in section 5(b).