Leaderboard

You have 60 days to do a rollover. It gets a little bit ugly if taxes were withheld...using your round number of $400 net received, the gross would be $500 with $100 of taxes withheld. You can roll over the full $500 - the other $100 comes out of your pocket. If you roll over $400, you will be taxed on the $100 that was effectively not rolled over because it went to the IRS.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm not talking about a "draw." I'm saying that "guaranteed payments" are not the definition of compensation - I am saying they would normally be included in arriving at net earnings from self-employment. However, it is possible for NESE to be less than the guaranteed payments. So if deferrals were being made based solely on guaranteed payments, and it turns out that NESE is less than the guaranteed payments, then you have a problem. Again, I suspect we are all agreeing on the final result, and it is just semantics in arriving at the final result.

The 1.410(b)-2(f) transition relief from 410(b) applies only if the plan satisfies 410(b) immediately before the acquisition. Company B's plan, adopted in 2018, did not exist before the acquisition, so the relief does not apply to Company B's plan for 2018, 2019, and 2020. If Company B's plan does not satisfy 410(b) for those years separately, then one option for B to pass 410(b) is to try to aggregate with Company A's plan for those years and hope that the aggregated plans pass 410(b).

Also, to utilize "early retirement", one must actually retire and stop working for the employer.

The 31% limit is the combined deduction limit for the DC/DB contributions for DB plans not covered by the PBGC. There is an exemption to this combined limit if the employer does not contribute more than 6% of compensation in the DC plan. I don't think the controlled group rules apply to Sec 404(a)(7) deduction code. Therefore, would not have to treat the two entities as a single employer & can provide a 25% profit sharing contribution for the entity that does not sponsor the cash balance plan.

SPARK members have met to discuss this (I would expect virtually al R/K'er have some variant of this issue (we do). Counsel to SPARK was on the call as well, and while not giving specific "legal" advice, indicated that *if* the money were out of the trust by the deadline (as in a common distribution checking account), arguably the deadline was met even though the check wasn't cut till the next day(s). BUT, there is a major 1099 issue - as to which year it is taxable in - if the check didn't go out until 1/4/2021.... No resolution....

Reading between the lines ("and penalty") this participant is less than 59 1/2 years old. Your plan has language saying that 401(k) deferrals can't be withdrawn prior to age 59 1/2 as an in-service distribution. Therefore it is not a distributable event. (The ERD is effectively not applicable to 401(k) money.)

What I'm saying is - you jaywalked, in the middle of the night, on a country road when nobody was around. Now you want to report yourself to the police and pay a fine. I will spell it out for you. You enter the person on a 2020 8955-SSA. Nothing bad happens. It's not like anyone knows that the person should have been reported in 2014, 15, or whenever.

You started out okay. But your conclusion is inconsistent.

You may get a more accurate/complete answer from an actuary, but in my limited reading of the 404(a)(3)(iv), it appears that the two PS plans would be aggregated and therefore, the total 31% you have allocated between the two PS would be okay.

The point Former Esq. describes might be in ERISA Advisory Opinion 89-06A: “The Department of Labor . . . would consider a member of a controlled group which establishes a benefit plan for its employees and/or the employees of other members of the controlled group to be an employer within the meaning of section 3(5) of ERISA.”

No, CARES Act withdrawals need to be completed by 12/31/2020 to be treated as CARES Act withdrawals. Congress may pass legislation extending that date into 2021 if they feel it is warranted, but so far they have not. And by completed I mean check issued or funds transferred with a 2020, 1099-R attached to it.

The 1.416 Treasury Regulations require you to use 415 annual compensation-- 1/1/2020 to 12/31/2020.

Looking at language in a pre-approved document, it says annual 415 compensation, so I would say you need to look at the entire year, but you should check the 416 regulations for certainty.

First, did you agree to split 50/50 the total amount, or just the amounts that had accrued as of the date of the separation agreement? Second, are you asking whether what you have done (you keep the 401(k) and he keeps the pension) is likely to approximate the 50/50 split under the separation agreement? (As a practical matter, maybe, but it depends on the actuarial value of the two retirement benefits.) Or are you asking whether a QDRO would provide you with meaningful additional rights? Third, what did you do with the 401(k)? Did you take a full distribution? Did you roll it into an IRA? Are you leaving it there until distributions are required by law? Did you file a beneficiary designation naming a child or someone else as your beneficiary, and did your spouse consent using a spousal consent form that was provided by the plan and accepted by the plan once completed? A QDRO would allow the pension plan to split each pension payment in half and send a separate check directly to you. Or, it might allow the plan to split the actuarial value of his benefit in two and send you a completely separate benefit election packet. However, if his benefit has already commenced, then it may be too late for that approach. If you trust him to send half of each payment to you, or if you don't care about potentially getting less than what you are entitled to, then maybe you don't need a QDRO. Without a QDRO, you might be able to sue him in state court to enforce the separation agreement and force him to pony up half of the pension payments, but the pension plan is not required to actually send payments to you directly unless you have a QDRO. Note that a 50% survivor annuity is probably worth much less than 50% of the total actuarial value of his pension. For example, if you both die on the same day (or if you die first) then he gets 100% of the pension, and you get nothing. You have to outlive him for a long time in order for the survivor annuity alone to be worth a decent chunk of the total pension. Even then, he's receiving immediate payments (that are twice as big as the payments you will eventually receive that he could theoretically invest in the stock market at 5% or more for decades while you are waiting to receive a single penny, which makes the payments he receives much more valuable even though they are only twice as big dollarwise. However, if you are actually getting the full benefit of the 401(k), and he is only getting the life annuity portion of an unsubsidized QJSA (assuming the actuarial value of the pension was actually the same as that of the 401(k)), then you would actually be getting a better deal because his lifetime pension payments are being reduced (probably by about 10%, but it varies) in order to fund the actuarial value of your 50% survivor annuity, and he isn't getting any such benefit with respect to your 401(k). And, by the way, spousal consent is not required to elect a 50% QJSA--that's the default. Spousal consent is only required when spousal default rights are being waived. If he waived his right to be the death beneficiary of your 401(k), but you waived nothing with respect to his pension, then that might be a bit one-sided (although, again, it depends on what your intent was, what the actual actuarial values of the two benefits were at the relevant moment, and whether I understand correctly what you have done).