Leaderboard

Agree with Lou but you can always use an off calendar year 12/1 - 11/30 for instance. That could get you your 2020 deferral limit and the safe harbor.

July 2017 discussion Quoting myself: --------- I think it is TAM9735001 Key language: " Under section 1.411(d)-4, A-1(d)(8), the conditions for receiving an allocation of contributions or forfeitures for a plan year are subject to section 411(d)(6) after such conditions have been satisfied. That is, once a participant has satisfied the conditions for receiving an allocation, the participant's right to an allocation becomes section 411(d)(6)-protected, and a plan amendment cannot add further conditions. " -------- I think the reg is clear enough and not sure whether the TAM predates it or not, and don't see that it matters. I can't believe there is any dispute about it.

@alexa A number issues to be aware of: Your Section 125 cafeteria plan almost certainly provides that participants remain eligible for the health FSA only while employed. Upon termination, they likely have standard run-out period (typically 90 days), with the option to continue coverage through COBRA if the account is underspent. Failure to follow the terms of the written cafeteria plan document jeopardizes the Section 125 safe harbor from constructive receipt, potentially resulting in all cafeteria plan elections becoming taxable for all employees. COBRA is available only through the end of the plan year in which the qualifying event occurs (with the exception of carryover funds that may continue to be available for the standard maximum coverage period). Employees will have no way to contribute pre-tax to the health FSA after termination of employment unless they continue to receive a standard payroll stream of payment as severance. I suppose in theory you could create a sort of retiree eligibility for the health FSA for as long as the cafeteria plan provided, the TPA could accommodate, and the terminated employee continued to receive regular severance payments, but I've never seen that attempted. What I would recommend is dropping that approach and simply moving to COBRA subsidies--while being careful to avoid potential §105(h) nondiscrimination issues. That's typically the only way you can accomplish employer-paid continuation of any H&W benefit without creating a retiree plan (which likely isn't your goal or blessed by the carriers/stop-loss). A couple posts that may be helpful: https://www.theabdteam.com/blog/health-fsa-reimbursements-termination-employment-2/ https://www.theabdteam.com/blog/cobra-subsidies-reimbursement-2/

457 Answer Book (Wolters Kluwer 8th ed. & Supp.) is updated for the laws you mention. Or call me. In early January, I revised my governmental § 457(b) clients’ plans to follow the “Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act of 2019”, the “Bipartisan American Miners Act of 2019”, and the “Taxpayer Certainty and Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2019”. Also, I then added a provision for future disasters, and it was enough to provide the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act’s coronavirus loans and distributions without touching the document again. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018’s addition to § 401(k) about hardship distributions does not affect, at least not directly, § 457(b)’s tolerance for an unforeseeable emergency. Section 457(b) does not have its own “remedial amendment” regime. Yet, the recent statutes might allow some delay for a governmental plan. But don’t assume everything is under SECURE’s remedial-amendment date; some provisions are under other divisions of the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020. For a governmental plan, a State’s law often requires a written plan’s revision much sooner than Federal tax law requires.

Discussed here: I eventually came around to the view that what you suggest is permissible. You would have to perform a 414(s) compensation test on the definition of compensation used to compute the safe harbor matching contributions (and make sure the client is prepared for the possibility that it might fail one of these plan years).

Check to see if the document already has a PS feature and vesting schedule but the Plan has simply not made a PS contribution. If that is the case, you'll want to look at the rules on changing a vesting schedule. You cannot add a PS feature to the Plan and start vesting in 2020. You may be able to exclude service prior to the effective date of the Plan in 2017.

I think you may be confusing the rule that to be a safe harbor 401(k) plan you need to allow for at least 3 months of elective deferrals with the new rule in the Secure Act that allows you to add a 3% non-elective safe harbor to an existing 401(k) at any time in the first 11 months of the plan year (or 4% non-elective in the 12th month of the plan year). I don't think anything in the Secure Act allows you to establish a new safe harbor 401(k) (or add 401(k) feature to existing PS plan) with less than 3 months left in the year.

Not the CARES Act, the Secure Act. A 401(k) Plan that is NOT a safe harbor can be amended to a 3% Non-elective Safe Harbor in the first 11 months of the plan year. A 401(k) Plan that is NOT a safe harbor can be amended to a 4% Non-elective Safe Harbor in the 12th month of the plan year. For a regular 401(k) Plan, you can not add a Safe Harbor match mid-year. For a Safe Harbor 401(k), you can not change the type of Safe Harbor; match to Non-elective or Non-elective to match mid year.

No, they can't because they've already "earned" the right to the current allocation method. What they can do (and I've done before) is to start a brand new PS plan with whatever allocation method they want and then merge it into the existing plan on 12/31. We've done the new document and merger materials simultaneously. Made the receivable deposits after the end of the year to the surviving plan. Do a 5500 for the new plan that is the first, last and only 5500. Show a transfer out on the asset section. Show a transfer in on the surviving plan. WCP

It depends on the terms of the plan. From what you're saying it appears that your ex-spouse may not be eligible for early retirement and their earliest retirement date is actually their normal retirement date which is age 62.