Leaderboard

For TPAs the uncertainty is whether or not their clients will survive this and be able to pay the plan admin bills. This won't show up in the first 8 weeks, but we will know more soon enough. Article in NYT yesterday suggested 40% of small business going away. So yeah, there is plenty of uncertainty to go around.

Well, since it's too late for SCP (and way too late for an 11g), you might be stuck with VCP. But then the issue is what the plan sponsor wants. Refunding the deferrals gets you out of the top heavy issue because the guy is never supposed to be in the plan. And it gets you out of the 5500 issue. Can't imagine the plan sponsor would want to provide a THM AND any ADP test QNEC AND have to file late 5500s to a guy who left. At that point you're then hoping the agent reviewing the submission doesn't think poorly of the fact pattern and not accept the submission to just Code-E the guy's refund!

That method seems fine to me.

Without seeing the employer’s written plan, we don’t know what conditions it sets. If the plan is no more restrictive than fits Internal Revenue Code § 21(b)(2) and § 129(d)-(e): Might a fee for the childcare provider’s service and availability have been a reimbursable expense when the employee paid it?

Did anything really change though? Did the law actually have to state that you cannot rely on a statement you know to be false? Maybe Derrin will talk about the Q&A in an hour...

Kac1214: You don't have to and shouldn't be trying to get into the participant's head. That's why we have self-certification. If he wants to roll it over, he can. If he wants to take it in cash he can. If the plan wants to adopt CRD's it can, and they CAN be rolled over if the participant wants; maybe he's got enough cash for a couple of months and wants to warehouse the dollars until he needs to spend them. In any case, "I'm an educated man, but I'm afraid I can't speak intelligently about the travel habits of William Santiago" which is to say you have no idea why he wants to do that and it isn't up to you to figure it out since self-certification solves all that. Take YES for an answer. (If anybody doesn't get the reference, please watch A Few Good Men.)

Why wouldn't they be able to?

The suspension not only *can* but it *must*, unless the plan sponsor adopts (informally will do until the end of 2022) policies that allows reamortization with the participant's agreement, which is *can*.

No, I cant get there based on the Q&A. It just means you cannot accept a statement you know to be false. Actual knowledge to the contrary doesnt imply a duty to confirm. Absence of a notification that an employee has been diagnosed (or spouse or dependent) isnt the same as as actual knowledge that there has not been a diagnosis, nor does it mean that you have to confirm/verify the diagnosis since you haven't been notified. You might want to verify for other reasons, but you are not required to for the distribution.