Leaderboard

IMHO, you are wise to question the rates you were given with your election notice. I have worked with employee benefits for decades, with special emphasis on 'compliance', and could count on one hand the number of self-insured group health plans that calculate COBRA rates properly. I am not saying that vast numbers of plan sponsors are cheating as most rely on advice from their broker or consultant. The lack of knowledge on the part of the employees whose position includes setting these rates for clients is alarming. It is not uncommon for self-insured COBRA rates using expenses that should not be included and using the plan's maximum claim exposure to set the rates. I am also suspicious when a concern involves a PEO. While there are many fine PEOs, the track record of several PEOs, both large and small is a concern. Comparing the cost of very similar coverage on your insurance Marketplace can help you get a rough idea of what the plan should cost. An individual policy that is very similar to your current coverage should cost more through the Marketplace. The older you are the greater the difference will be, with the cost of COBRA being less. I have attached the section of the Internal Revenue Code that addresses how COBRA premiums are set (it is several pages, but it is bookmarked and highlighted). I recommend pushing back on the PEO. If this is a private employer (not public sector e.g., city, school district, etc.) you can also call the Department of Labor. Your state insurance department may be able to help if your employer is in the public sector. Good luck. IRC_4980B_Failure_to_satisfy_cont_coverage_require_of_group_health_plans.pdf

That's how I see it. The participant could claim it as a CVD but the plan has no obligation to treat it that way. This is how I am treating it, but there is plenty of disagreement here. Some say the plan can, but is not required to, allow a participant to self certify even if the plan does not offer CRDs. Derrin had this in his Q&A earlier this month, and Im hoping he will clarify it during the webcast today. EDIT: Derrin reiterated this position during today's webcast. Link to webcast. They usually have the recording up within a day or two if you were unable to attend

That's how I see it. The participant could claim it as a CVD but the plan has no obligation to treat it that way. Sure, there's a lot of misinformation and willful blindness. There is no requirement to offer CVDs.

Can't she do that either way since she terminated? or is there a wait? If former employers plan offers CRDs, the answer is yes. For tax purposes, the answer is yes, regardless of former employers CRD election.

Whatever aggregation/disaggregation is done for coverage, must also be done for nondiscrimination. You have to aggregate the SHNEC and the discretionary PS for coverage; you have to do the same for 401(a)(4). It sounds like some employees are getting a 3% allocation rate and others are getting 7%. If 100% of the HCEs and at least 70% of the NHCEs are getting the 7%, then the general test is satisfied on an allocation rate basis and you are done. If not, then you can try other testing methods, such as cross-testing. If the highest HCE allocation rate is 7% then 3% is plenty for the gateway. If you are unable to pass testing, then an -11(g) corrective amendment would be needed to increase contributions for enough NHCEs to pass testing. I am not sure why top heavy would be an issue if every employee is getting at least 3% by way of the SHNEC.

I was curious about the 5498 deadline too. IRA contributions can now be made until July 15...but the 5498 filing deadline is also July 15. I don't see where there has been any lag time like there typically is after the normal April 15 tax filing deadline. It seems both deadlines (contributions and 5498 filing) are now both extended to the same day.

Maybe this? IRS Notice 2020-23: "For an Affected Taxpayer with respect to Specified Filing and Payment Obligations, the due date for filing Specified Forms and making Specified Payments is automatically postponed to July 15, 2020.... This relief is automatic ... The Secretary of the Treasury has also determined that any person performing a time-sensitive action listed in ... Revenue Procedure 2018-58 ... which is due to be performed on or after April 1, 2020, and before July 15, 2020 (Specified Time-Sensitive Action), is an Affected Taxpayer." Rev. Proc. 2018-58 -- See page 45

Under ERISA, the assets have to be sited in U.S. That's pretty easy to do, but important. The more complex thing is having a domestic trust, which is necessary for the plan to be qualified under 401(a). There's a "court test" and a "control test," both of which must be satisfied. See Treas. Reg. sec. 301.7701-7. The control test is pretty easy if the assets are sited in U.S. as required by ERISA, but the control test is complex and not easily satisfied if the individual who will in fact call the shots is not a U.S. person under IRC sec. 7701(a)(30). In these situations I have found that usually the only practical solution is to have a U.S. bank or trust company as trustee, even if it is a completely directed trustee, and even if the plan administrator who will direct the trustee is dominated by foreign persons. See Treas. reg. 301.7701-7(d)(1)(iv) and (v), especially Example 5 of 301.7701-7(d)(1)(v).

The key to understanding the SECURE provision is that the employment-based retirement plan’s distribution is not a payment of money; it is a distribution of the contract, the one that is no longer the plan’s investment alternative. (The plan should provide, or at least not preclude, a distribution by a delivery of the contract.) Under Internal Revenue Code § 401(a)(38)(A)(ii), a plan doesn’t tax-disqualify because the plan allows “distributions of a lifetime income investment in the form of a qualified plan distribution annuity contract[.]” “If a trust described in section 401(a) and exempt under section 501(a) purchases an annuity contract for an employee and distributes it [the annuity contract] to the employee in a year in which the trust is exempt, and the contract contains a cash surrender value which may be available to an employee by surrendering the contract, such cash surrender value will not be considered income to the employee unless and until the contract is surrendered. . . . .” 26 C.F.R. § 1.402(a)-1(a)(2) https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=85324826c4efd646e65f48bddbb1cf78&mc=true&node=se26.6.1_1402_2a_3_61&rgn=div8 Caution: This discussion is limited to helping employee-benefits practitioners. Anything I post here is not advice to anyone.

No.

Yes.

No and no. A courtesy notice maybe. In my own plan, my accountant tells me to adopt a resolution confirming the PS that was done (we don't do matching contributions) so it might make sense to have an end of year reso that says "whatever we did is approved."