Leaderboard

Because the agent wants to sell life insurance, silly!

Let's be clear while the beneficiary will be entitled to the benefit even if in prison there are very strict rules in many states (maybe all) on paying a prisoner. The last time I had one of these the money was put into an account at the prison for the benefit of the prisoner. You will want information form the prison or prisoner on how to write the check if you are helping do that. It was the lady's money but it was in some odd prison account. Everyone agreed it wasn't a violation of the anti-alienation rules because once she was out of prison she controlled the money. It is just her control while in prison that had limits.

Find a large nearby bank that offers trust services, and ask. If they don't want your business (perhaps they have a minimum size?), they may be able to recommend someone else.

Rev. Rul. 54-51 requires that for the life insurance to be "incidental", the policy must be converted to a retirement income or distributed to the participant no later than the normal retirement date under the plan. Rev. Rul. 57-213 clarified that the life insurance policy may continue beyond the normal retirement age, provided the participant does not elect to retire. I doesn't matter if they are taking in-service distributions or RMDs provided they continue to work.

As Belgarath states, do not even suggest the back-dating of documents - illegal and unethical. How a RK or TPA cannot maintain a copy of the most recent signed plan document and subsequent amendments boggles my mind. How do you know you are administering the plan in accordance with the ACTUAL plan rather than your assumptions based on an unsigned draft? And that you are actually administering an updated qualified plan if you don't know for certain that it has indeed been adopted? Back in paper days, I can see not maintaining past versions once updated (and leaving that sole responsibility to the sponsor), but in the digital age there is NO reason that both the plan sponsor and TPA (and RK if separate) each has a signed copy (even electronically signed) stored electronically. And thinking "of course it was signed back in XXXXXX" is faulty reasoning because many a(n emailed) document gets buried in the mailbox, deleted, forgotten, back-burnered - take your pick - and is then never signed within the required time frame.

JustMe -- It's not that simple. You can establish an open MEP that can be filed on a single 5500, but transitioning whatever current arrangement you may have to the single 5500 will require some actions that would be difficult to take retroactively. There's also a question that your current arrangement could be easily shoehorned into the DoL's currently effective guidance. Note also that the PEP Plan rules, which allow for a completely open MEP provided certain requirements are met, do not go into effect until 2021.

If it truly can't be located, file under VCP as a non-amender. However, when faced with a substantial fee (IRS fee and TPA fee to file) you may be astonished at how the employer suddenly locates it. Many times the "I can't locate it" is code for "I can't be bothered to really look." Not saying that is the case here, but it often is. As to your proposed solution, my advice is don't even think about suggesting this to a client. Did the employer search corporate minutes, etc., to see if there is at least a resolution adopting the restated plan?

Do you mean can you hire someone to be the Trustee? Most large banks and financial institutions will provide this service, but it generally isn't cost effective, or desired, with smaller pension plans.

If the plan’s governing documents allocated investment responsibilities to participants or they had a right to direct investment, might the plan’s administrator have breached an ERISA § 404(a) responsibility if the administrator did not meet the disclosure requirements of 29 C.F.R. § 2550.404a-5 for 2012 and later years. Even if the liability exposure to the one employee is both slight and remote, an employer/administrator might consider getting its lawyer’s advice about opportunities to reform, or at least amend, the document to state a plan that is not participant-directed (if that was, or is, the true intent).

Depends. Does the letter say "Form 14568" at the top and have a VCP user fee tucked inside? https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/correcting-required-minimum-distribution-failures You can also try your luck with requesting a waiver on Form 5329. They might grant it, they might not. See the instructions for "Waiver of tax for reasonable cause" here https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i5329.pdf

As I recall, there is a VCP fix for this - an Employer Eligibility Failure. Essentially, the employer must cease contributions, but the contributions already made are treated as a proper SIMPLE contribution. I haven't checked to see if this still holds true under RP 2019-19.

I agree with Bill, it absolutely makes no economic sense to purchase life insurance with after-tax dollars in a Roth 401(k). Your paying premiums with after tax dollars same as you would outside of the Plan. Any cash value increases (dividends or interest) grow tax deferred with potential income-tax free distributions (for Non Modified Endowment contracts) via return of basis and loans. It is also my understanding that the taxable term cost to the participant (the Table 2001 or the old PS 58 costs) are applied to the participants cost based on the employer's payment of premiums, the case of a qualified plan the plan's payment of premiums, no tax or economic benefit on the inside buildup. Considering the participant is paying tax on the entire premium in a Roth, I don't understand how there could be a taxable term cost. I cannot find a specific site on this and I'm only going on the affect of a pre-tax taxable term cost.

If your Keys are over age 50, one thing that can help is to put a dollar limit on deferrals of $0 for key employees only. Then they can defer up to the catch-up limit and their deferrals will be reclassified due to exceeding a plan-imposed limit. Catch-up contributions are not counted for top heavy purposes so no TH minimum. $6,500 is a lot less than $26,000, but if they absolutely can not afford the TH minimum then this is better than nothing.

Why would someone use Roth money in a plan to pay life insurance premiums?

If none of the key employees defer or receive any other contributions, then there is no TH minimum. As Luke reminds us, the IRS can not rewrite the law. TH relief would have to come from Congress.

It's no help for 2019. For 2020, it lets the sponsor suspend the SHNEC without the 30 day advance notice. It also lets the sponsor suspend the SH even if they did not provide the "maybe not" cause in their notice, and without regard to whether they are operating at an economic loss.