Leaderboard

It really isn't a problem at all for me. Most clients like the reassurance that they can reach me after hours if needed, but very few actually use it unless it is truly an emergency. Keep in mind that I am not saying that other should do this, just that it works for me in my situation. It depends on how your business is structured, what your responsibilities are, and the type of clients you have. I am fortunate enough to be able to say that we pick our clients as much as the clients pick us. To use a @Larry Starr-ism, we are not a TPA. We are the retirement plan consulting department of a larger consulting firm. There are clients who are retirement plan clients only, an there are clients who have multiple engagements with our firm. Many of these clients want more than a provider to perform a task, they want a trusted adviser to help them with many parts of their business. I also travel and do more problem solving / "firefighting" and business development than I do day to day admin, so being reachable outside of banking hours comes with the job. Maybe its just me, but I have never looked at it this way (doesn't mean it is wrong for others though). In my opinion, when you treat something as "just a job", that means you are replaceable at a moments notice with someone else to just do the job. When you have clients who have been with you for 20-30 years, that call 5 years ago could absolutely matter.

Correct.

Assuming $42,000 is rolled over, leaving him with $8,000 distributed for 2020: He can include $8,000 in income for 2020, or include $2,667 in 2020, $2,667 in 2021, and $2,666 in 2022. He can avoid income inclusion by repaying the $8,000, but if the repayment is done after any amount has been included in income, he will need to file an amended return

I'll assume that the matching contributions are safe harbor matching contributions, i.e. that there isn't an unmentioned 3% safe harbor nonelective contribution fulfilling the safe harbor rules. This doesn't work. A HCE might have a better ratio of safe harbor match to elective deferrals than an NHCE electing the same percentage of pay to be contributed as elective deferrals. That would violate Treas. Reg. 1.401(k)-3(c)(4). Welcome to the message boards!

Yes, acquisition of employer of Plan B by employer of Plan A. Employer A wants to stop the Safe harbor contribution upon the acquisition date as it is too expensive. Too late to terminate the SH plan as acquisition already occurred...

There is insufficient information here, suggest you discuss with counsel. From an arms length, it does appear as if you may have a plan that is subject to ERISA, but it depends on how the plan is structured. If it is an informal plan then it may be subject to state regulation, and if you have a multi-state organization there may be multiple state regulations to consider. If it is a formal plan, it tends to be ERISA regulated. But keep in mind, I do not know enough, just some thoughts for you to consider.

The definition of "cutback" in a govt. plan will probably be included in the plan itself. If it's vague (not surprising), maybe look to other language related to plan interpretation.

If it is calc'd per pay period then it is per pay period (period ?). Option 1. I think such changes have the potential to be discriminatory.

No. The outstanding loan is still part of their account balance. Example - account balance prior to loan is 100,000. COVID loan taken for 100,000. We'll ignore any payments/accumulated interest for illustrative purposes to keep it simple. Now they terminate employment, still owe 100,000. Their account value is still 100,000. The loan is offset. Account balance is now zero.

chibenefits, a percentage deferral election in 2020 before the amended is adopted should have used the plan's definition of compensation. Most likely the match should have as well, although if it is an end of year discretionary match, conditioned on end of year employment, you should be able to change retro to 1/1.

Client's plan is poorly designed if it only allows changes on entry dates, since a participant has only ONE entry date ever which means he can't ever change it! Probably doesn't actually say that (the words we use do matter, especially in our business). Maybe it says it allows changes only on 1/1 and 7/1, but that is just a bad design. Amend plan to allow changes at any payroll date; why not?????

Yes, still HCE, there is no legal requirement to provide an inheritance and once an adult there is nothing for the parent to dis from owning, i.e., no support obligation. Allowing this situation to make the son an NHCE would simply create all sorts of potential abuse, which is questionable here in my mind - if relationship is that strained, why is son still working for parent?

Something seems backwards.

I have railed against the use of TPA to describe what we do since time immemorial. I have lost that argument, but I still don't refer to ourselves as a TPA and I correct anyone who uses that term with us. We use the phrase "retirement plan service provider" or just plain "service provider". Because, I ain't a THIRD PARTY anything! We're a FIRST PARTY with our clients. I ask clients if they would refer to their atty or acct as a "third party atty or acct". Same thing with us. We represent the client directly, not as a third party. The phrase TPA came from the health insurance industry where there really is a "party of the third part" which is different than the party of the first part (the client) and the party of the second part (the insurance company) who then go out and hire a true THIRD PARTY to do some work on their behalf. What a mistake our industry has made and continues to make.