Leaderboard

When Lou was talking about reducing the hypothetical account for amounts paid it would have been clearer if he said you reduce the hypothetical account to zero to reflect the fact that a benefit has been started.

I think if the plan says 80% is the max it is implicit that it is per pay period. I don't see anything clarifying this in our (FTW) document.

Don't forget to monitor our online directory of upcoming webcasts and conferences (both free and payment-required).

I understand that the employer can make the above allowances; are the members simply going to forfeit funds with no expenses available to them? Its all well and good to stop making contributions, but members stand to lose thousands of dollars due to lack of expenses and no recourse to carry over or refund.

The two significant issues still out there: 1) Can you fund whatever you want into your retirement program in your (now) 24 weeks, regardless of whether it is 2019 or 2020 funding, and without regard to some pro-rata contribution limit. I believe that you can put in anything you want (that is legitimate contributions) and it counts towards the forgiveness. 2) Is there any restriction on C or S corporation stockholders who are also employees, like the restrictions on Schedule SE filers (sole props, partners)? I say there are NOT. There are a few other minor issues but resolving the above two will quiet most of the noise out there. It really didn't solve anything; it extended the 8 weeks to 24 and changed the 75/25 to 60/40 but in the process screwed up the language about the 60% (which they are already saying needs to be fixed: the "cliff" issue).

A CB plan is a type of defined benefit plan. You can't have the annuity decrease whether it is active or frozen. The participant can always elect the annuity benefit and Plan has to either pay it or purchase an annuity to pay him. Unless there is some reason the plan can't like it's termination and underfunded or something like that. Assuming it's not a PBGC plan which will have it's own additional rules when terminating.

I'll second Erisapedia, they put on lots of good free webinars. You should be able to get at least half of your CPE from them in a given year.

The RMD is his annuity benefit in the form that he elects. That won't decrease once started but could increase if there are future accruals, which in this case sounds unlikely. Yes you reduce the hypothetical account for the withdrawal paid. Yes you have to preserve the annuity benefit to avoid anti-cut back provisions.

Once contributions have been made to spending accounts, the only way to get the amounts out is through reimbursement of qualified expenses (and employer group health plan premiums are not allowed to be reimbursed from FSAs). The employer could choose to add a grace period on to it's plan to allow individuals to incur expenses up through December 31, 2020 under the new COVID 19 guidance. The employer could also choose to amend the plan prior to the end of the plan year to permit a rollover. If it wasn't so late in the plan year, the employer also could decide to take advantage of the opportunity to allow participants to change their elections, but with a 6/30 PYE, that isn't very helpful for these situations.

ERISAGal, under 402(c)(1)(C), if you still have the property you can roll all of it back to an eligible retirement plan. But it has to be "the property," i.e. not shares that you repurchase after you sold the distributed shares. That's the general rule. CARES Act 2202 however refers to rolling back "an amount" not in excess of amount distributed, so CuseFan has a point. I don't know what Congress intended, or whether Congress knew what it intended. Since 2202 does not say "dollar amount," IRS should have leeway to interpret it favorably where participant takes the stock just in case, does not sell it, and then wants to roll back that stock. But again, seems unclear under the CARES Act wording, to me at least.

If the plan allowed in-kind rollovers I expect the person could re-contribute back the shares, but depending on the current value when rolled back, they might not be able to redeposit all the shares (if value had increased) or avoid taxation (if value had decreased) because I think you have to consider the FMV as of each event - distribution and repayment. And if these were ER securities for which the net unrealized appreciation was being further deferred, that muddies the situation further.