Leaderboard

Let's make a list. A lot of them are conditional depending on plan design. SAR (if not subject to Title IV) AFN (if subject to Title IV) Benefit Statement (4x per year if participant-directed DC plan, 1x per year if not participant-directed, 1x per 3 years if DB plan) For a participant-directed plan, the benefit statement might include the additional information required by ERISA 105(a)(2), or it could be furnished in separate notice(s) Safe Harbor Notice (if a safe harbor 401(k) plan) QDIA Notice (if plan uses a QDIA) EACA Notice (if an EACA) QACA Notice (if a QACA) What else am I missing?

We'd wondered how long the IRS is taking during this pandemic to process VCP applications, and thought others might be interested. Here is data from one of ours: January 23, 2019 submitted June 11, 2019 acknowledgement from IRS April 17, 2019 IRS requests additional information May 18, 2019 We respond May 19, 2020 VCP compliance statement (1 year after last contact)

408b2 and 404a5

Another one that might apply on an annual basis is an ERISA 101(j) notice for a plan that is subject to benefit restrictions due to its funded status.

Again, conditional: 402(f) Notice for distributions, SMM/SPD for amendments.

This is not that complicated. P either meets the CRD requirements, which at this point (without IRS "gloss" by way of a Notice or other guidance) are about as near to computer code as you can get (P diagnosed w/Covid or Dep diagnosed with Covid or P has [loss of job or hours] because of Covid) as you can get. And that little bit of logic is between P and his or her tax return. The employer's role is simply "If P certifies and ER has no contrary knowledge, then OK." In this case, depending on the employer's and plan's governance, P and ER may be one and same, so the retirement adviser needs to make clear what the requirements are and then stand back.

When $3,000 of deferrals are recharacterized as catch-up at 4/30/19 due to the failed ADP test, that also reduces the regular deferrals from 1/1/19 - 4/30/19 that count towards the 402(g) limit by $3,000. The end result is that the participant still gets to defer the full 402(g) limit plus the catch-up limit for the calendar year. To me, that result makes sense because the individual's maximum deferral is not affected by the plan's determination of the catch-up [see 402(g)(1)(C)]. A calendar year plan is a little different because a participant who defers $25,000 in 2019 has used up all of the 2019 catch-up limit before the end of the year. 402(g) triggered catch-ups are not used in the ADP test. Also, if there is a refund due, the full catch-up limit has already been used, so none of the refund can be recharacterized. With the participant having $6,500 recharacterized as catch-up at 4/30/20 from a failed ADP test, that means all of the participant's deferrals from 5/1/20-12/31/20 are included in the PYE 4/30/21 ADP test. The participant still gets to defer up to $26,000 for calendar year 2020.

There is a whole host of "Compliance Calendars" in the BenefitsLink news archive -- maybe a quick run through one or more of those would help? Here are a few (and for differing types of plans): https://benefitslink.com/news/index.cgi/view/20200127-155620 https://benefitslink.com/news/index.cgi/view/20200127-155621 https://benefitslink.com/news/index.cgi/view/20200226-156243 (There are more, and by different authors ... the search engine should find a few.)

We had this exact issue with a payroll service that stopped the match as soon as the participant hit the comp limit, even though the document did not have such a limitation. It required a response from an ERISA attorney and a letter of instruction from the plan sponsor for the service provider to "modify" their system.

The CARES Act provides that a Plan Administrator may rely on the participant's certification that they are a qualified individual in determining if any distribution is a CRD. Therefore, the participant may certify that they are a qualified individual, and the plan may treat the distribution made in January as a CRD, and accept it as a rollover. The CARES Act does not require the IRS to rely on a self-certification; the individual must in fact be a qualified individual in order to exclude the amount of the rolled over distribution from their income on their tax return. In this situation, my advice would be: If the participant is a qualified individual (as defined in CARES), and has not otherwise used up their $100,000 CRD limit, then proceed as Larry suggests. If they are not a qualified individual, then wait and see if the HEROES Act passes, since it will allow the rollover to be done without any workarounds. If HEROES goes nowhere, sit tight. The IRS may announce new qualifying factors which could make the participant a qualifying individual. Failing that, there is no time limit on when the participant may make the certification as a qualified individual; if circumstances change any time before the end of 2022 they can still certify and roll the amount of the distribution back into the plan or IRA.

There is absolutely NOTHING unethical about the workaround. IF the participant can claim it as a CRD, then it is a "workaround" to the problem that the distribution was made as an RMD, which doesn't exist in 2020. You may think "workaround" SCREAMS inappropriateness; it simply does not. Assuming a 3% ADP for NHCEs in a new 401(k) plan set up in November of 2019 is a "workaround", perfectly legitimate, of the normal ADP test. The HCEs can defer 5% even if no one else defers a penny in a non safe harbor plan. This is nothing more than pointing out the workaround in this situation, which is perfectly legal.

The HEROES Act contains this relief. It waives the 60-day requirement for rollovers of distributions which would have been RMDs if not for CARES/HEROES until December 1, 2020. The bill was passed by the House but is still pending in the Senate.