Leaderboard

It's on the IRS website. All three, I think... I'll even help https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/plan-participant-employee/retirement-topics-required-minimum-distributions-rmds

Seems right to me, but of course I don't have all the facts, just your sketch of them.

It is my understanding, referring to IRS Notice 2005-58 and Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.457-11 as the most recent guidance, a Federal Credit Union may establish either plan. However if they are establishing an ineligible plan under 457(f) it must also meet the document and operational compliance with both 457(f) and 409A.

Belgarath, we are now in agreement.

Yes.

This is complicated -- but, at the very least, the participant is entitled to a single payment from the db plan equal to all the payments she should have received, plus interest. Everything else depends on the provisions of the plans involved. I have a feeling a lump sum was not available from the pension, so there was never a valid election, and the pension started paying out in the default form (and the checks were never cashed).

So you want to know how NESE can be less than guaranteed payments? 'Cause earned income also takes into account the partner's distributable share of partnership income that ISN'T attributable to guaranteed payments. This could be a loss. Also adjustments mentioned by C.B. above. Is this common? Not in my experience. But it happens.

Another demonstration of the legal maxim that truth is stranger than fiction.

Relius posted this message about YEDC. DATE: January 5, 2021 SUBJECT: Relius Administration -YEDC Performance Issues DISTRIBUTION: Relius Administration YEDC Users SUMMARY YEDC is currently experience performance issues that may prevent you from publishing your . WHAT FIS IS DOING Relius is currently addressing the issue and will send an updates as we work toward a resolution. If you have created a support incident detailing your issue, a representative will provide updates via incident. CONTACT For assistance, please contact Support during the updated or normal business hours by entering an incident on relius.net/support.or by phone at 1-800-326-7235.

Are you over age 72? How small is small - less than $200? There is no penalty on you if the plan fails to withhold, but it jeopardizes the plan. Worst case, the plan could get disqualified and your contributions would no longer be eligible for rollover. That's an extreme result though, and rarely used. Most likely, as long as all taxes are eventually paid, the IRS will not bother anyone about it.

Clarification: you can't change the plan year after the end of the short plan year (ie, 12/31 in this example). BTW, if you want to show some consulting chops, you will ask the client why. Sometimes, there can be good reasons to leave the plan year unchanged even when the company fiscal year changes. (Asking why does not mean you are taking a position or being accusatory, just trying to help.)

You can't change the plan year after the end of the plan year. So you're stuck with the 9/30/20 and 9/30/21 year ends. Then you can have a short plan year from 10/1/21-12/31/21. WCP

Why? If this was a suspension under the CARES Act then you can extend the term of the loan by up to 1 year. See section 5 of Notice 2020-50. If you're not extending the term of the loan then it makes perfect sense. Let's say the outstanding balance when the suspension started was $25,000 with 57 payments remaining. Then you decide to eliminate 9 of those payments. Even if it wasn't increased with interest, dividing the balance by a smaller number of remaining payments is going to result in a larger installment amount. I believe it would. However if the plan permits participants to refinance their loans it may be possible for them to replace the loan with a new loan that has a different interest rate.

Maybe this is a silly question, but why don't we know the 2016 ADP? Last I checked we are past 12/31/2016. But for the sake of discussion I will assume it isn't known at the time the correction is being made. When EPCRS does not specify a correction method for a given situation, you should do something reasonable under the circumstances. Any of the following might be reasonable: Use the 2015 ADP Use the average ADP from 2010-2015 Use the highest ADP from 2010-2015 Use the deferral percentage that was actually elected effective 2/15/2016 There are doubtlessly other reasonable methods as well. If you are filing VCP because this is a significant failure then you will have the opportunity to get affirmative approval for your correction method from the IRS.

I hadn't even thought of changing the interest rate. I suppose you could, if there is something in the loan policy saying you do that for reamortizations (but reamortizations aren't generally contemplated). Did you add one year to the loan payment schedule? Generally I'd expect payments to be lower.

Some plans handle disputes about qualification through the plan’s claims procedures. At one point, the DOL took the position that the issue was not a matter for claims procedures. I do not know if the position has changed. Claims procedures are either described in the summary plan description or summarized in the summary plan description, with a full claims procedure document available upon request. You make your case by submitting a claim for benefits, explaining the error made by the plan and the legal authority for the outcome you desire. The plan is required to assess and respond, with an explanation of its position. The exercise often forces plans to get religion, or at least competent advice about its position.

Agree with QDROphile. A QDRO only need the following to qualify: What information must a domestic relations order contain to qualify as a QDRO under ERISA? QDROs must contain the following information: -the name and last known mailing address of the participant and each alternate payee; - the name of each plan to which the order applies; - the dollar amount or percentage (or the method of determining the amount or percentage) of the benefit to be paid to the alternate payee; and -the number of payments or time period to which the order applies. [ERISA § 206(d)(3)(C)(i)-(iv); IRC § 414(p)(2)(A)-(D)]

In the first case I believe the 401(k) does not have a problem but the SIMPLE IRA does. VCP can be used to ask that the SIMPLE IRA contributions remain in the IRA for years you had 2 plans. In the 2nd case I'm not clear on what happened. Did the controlled group/related employer adopt the Plan? Does the Plan Document automatically pull in members of a controlled group whether of not they formally signed on to the plan? Would the plan pass coverage with the related employer properly excluded, that is if it did not sign on and the document doesn't automatically pull them in?

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).

Hmmm - in order to be eligible for the credit, the employer cannot have maintained a plan during the immediately preceding 3-year period, to which contributions were made, or benefits accrued, for "substantially the same employees." If some NHC's will be covered - say it is a safe harbor nonelective plan for example - I'd be inclined to say the credit is available. Up to the accountant, of course...