Leaderboard

It’s been five years since I retired and I’m pleased to admit that I have forgotten everything pension except the friends I made as a result of BenefitsLink.

The regs require pension plans to provide definitely determinable benefits, and that the amount of such benefits is not directly based on profits. Beyond this there is not much to go on AFAIK and I've never heard of IRS raising this as an issue. That said, I tell my clients while there is nothing prohibiting annual amendments to the plan, a yo-yo pattern of amendments to the pay credits could give the IRS an opening to challenge the plan on this basis. I discourage annual amendments, but at the end of the day it's up to the client, it is not my place to "allow" or not allow.

Here is a userscript that will send you straight to the first unread comment in a thread. You can add this to the Greasemonkey addon in Firefox or the Tampermonkey addon in Chrome or Safari and it should work automatically. I am not sure if there is a way to run this on mobile currently - Greasemonkey used to work on Android but I think they broke it last year. I have no idea about iOS, sorry. // ==UserScript== // @name BenefitsLink Go to Unread // @description Click on a thread title jump to the first unread post // @version 1 // @namespace localhost // @include https://benefitslink.com/boards/* // ==/UserScript== var titles = document.evaluate('//li[contains(@class,"ipsDataItem_unread")]/div[@class="ipsDataItem_main"]/h4/span/a',document,null,XPathResult.ORDERED_NODE_SNAPSHOT_TYPE,null); for (var i=0; i<titles.snapshotLength; i++) { var a = titles.snapshotItem(i).href; if (a.indexOf("do=getNewComment") < 0) { titles.snapshotItem(i).href = a + "&do=getNewComment"; } }

When using a mouse, as when using a desktop, that works. Thanks. However when using my phone the little circle is too little. maybe my fingers are just too fat. In any event I would like the option reversed where the little circle takes you to the top anywhere you select the title takes you to the first unread message. I can dream right?

Depends on what you mean by "plan related issues" Is the IC reviewing/consulting on plan design changes (settlor functions) or is the IC helping with gathering data/determining amount of benefits (administration expenses). Settlor functions-no plan assets. Administrative expenses--probably yes. And, as stated above, just because payment can be made for the services, it has to meet one of the PT exemptions (reasonable comp, etc..) You need to be more specific on "plan related issues." See my comments above. If it is a function that the settlor normally engages in, such as making a plan amendment, determining plan design changes, then no. If it part of what is normally considered administrative expenses of the plan, then probably yes. NO. NO. NO. NO. Don't even think about this.

The correction is to get the notarized consent, and if you cannot get notarized consent, the failure can only be fixed through VCP.

To piggy-back on XTitan's response, the 409A Treasury Regulations allow for a payment of benefits on the termination of a NQDC, but as I recall there are a few requirements that must be met. For example, the termination cannot be proximate to an employer's financial downturn. All of the same types of NQDC of the employer must also be terminated. The payment on account of termination cannot be made (other than otherwise allowed under the plan) within 12 months of termination and must be completed within 24 months. Also, I think there is a restriction on the time period (I think 3 years) during which another NQDC of the same type cannot be established.

The Rollover you did of the outstanding loan balance is not part of your basis.

I was pretty sure yes, and googling "loan default as rmd" actually brought me first to several prior discussions on these boards, as far back as 2004.

1. I think the IC needs to provide services directly to the plan rather than simply helping the plan sponsor gathering data for the plan, and provide detailed invoices for such services so reasonableness can be determined. 2. Again, if services are provided to the plan and not to the sponsor for the plan. Consulting with the owner on how to maximize contributions - not service to the plan. Preparing a 5500 filing or reconciling assets - yes, but have a hard time thinking a CPA is needed for any service to the plan rather than the sponsor. 3. Absolutely no on getting paid to advise and trustee his own plan.

I believe the correction is to get the proper consent and notarization now or, alternatively repay the outstanding balance immediately.

The devil is in the details. In general, a company can "freeze" A NQDC plan (not permit new deferrals) without terminating/liquidating the plan, as long as this is done in compliance with 409A if the plan is required to comply.

And remember, the expenses have to be reasonable. Not gonna pay someone $5,000 to put together census data for a 50 person plan. (and if they really want to pay that much, send them my contact info. I'm free on weekends to help out.)

I assume the Plan allows for payment of expenses... 1. Assuming the IC isn't a party-in-interest that that would create a PT, I don't see a problem with the plan paying what amounts to reasonable administrative expenses. 2. Again assuming it is ongoing adminstrative expenses of the plan shouldn't be a problem. If its a settlor function it should be paid by the sponsor. 3. I believe this would be a prohibited transaction. I don't think there is a class exemption that allows this but I could be wrong.

If he made proper catch-up contributions prior to 2020, the balance on his underutilized amount in 2020 would be $2000 ($11,500 underutilized amount - $9500 catch-up), i.e. his max catch-up contribution in 2020 would have been $2000. However, the bigger problem is that it looks like he made a $1000 catch up contribution in 2017, the year before he was eligible to do so, and because of that he exceeded the 2017 dollar limitation by $1,000. Also, 2020 would make 4 years of catch-up contributions (there really would be three years of catch up I suppose in 2018, 2019 and 2020, with an excess contribution of $1000 in 2017). There's a theoretical question then of whether there is a $2000 or $3000 balance on the underutilized amount in 2020, but the 2017 excess contribution opens up a much bigger can of worms. See Rev. Proc. 2019-19, Sec. 4.09 and 1.457-4(e)(3). See also https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/457b-plans-correction-of-excess-deferrals Perhaps there's some fail-safe language in the plan document characterizing the excess as 457(f)?

If one assumes the plan is ERISA-governed: The plan’s administrator might consider whether the plan provides or omits a one-year-marriage condition for a spouse to get whichever ERISA § 205 right—qualified preretirement survivor annuity, or whole account—the plan provides. ERISA § 205(f)(1) states: “[A] plan may provide that a qualified joint and survivor annuity (or a qualified preretirement survivor annuity) will not be provided unless the participant and spouse had been married throughout the 1-year period ending on the earlier of— (A) the participant’s annuity starting date, or (B) the date of the participant’s death.” The statute does not state, at least not directly, that a plan may provide such a one-year-marriage condition to limit a spouse’s ERISA § 205(b)(1)(C) right to get the participant’s account. But consider this rule: Q-26: In the case of a defined contribution plan not subject to section 412, does the requirement that a participant’s nonforfeitable accrued benefit be payable in full to a surviving spouse apply to a spouse who has been married to the participant for less than one year? A-26: A plan may provide that a spouse who has not been married to a participant throughout the one-year period ending on the earlier of (a) the participant’s annuity starting date or (b) the date of the participant’s death is not treated as a surviving spouse and is not required to receive the participant’s account balance. The special exception described in section 417(d)(2) and Q&A-25 of this section does not apply. 26 C.F.R. § 1.401(a)-20/Q&A-26 https://ecfr.federalregister.gov/current/title-26/chapter-I/subchapter-A/part-1/subject-group-ECFRa9e579304da97df/section-1.401(a)-20. The Treasury department’s rule interprets not only the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 but also ERISA § 205. Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1978 (Aug. 10, 1978), 43 Fed. Reg. 47,713 (Oct. 17, 1978), 92 Stat. 3790 (1978), § 101. See also 5 U.S.C. App. 237. But a court defers to an agency’s rule only if the statute is ambiguous and the rule is a permissible interpretation of the statute. For a situation of the kind Santo Gold describes, a plan’s administrator might consider these steps (with others): 1. Does a governing document state a one-year-marriage condition? 2. If so, does the document’s provision comport with ERISA § 205? Or must the administrator ignore the purported provision because it is contrary to ERISA’s title I? 3. If the plan provides a one-year-marriage condition, how does it apply to the participant’s and the spouses’ facts? BenefitsLink neighbors, do the designers of IRS-preapproved documents give a user a choice about whether to state or omit a one-year-marriage condition?

Is the match discretionary? If so, unless your plan document has provisions that prevent you from doing so, you can cap the match for HCEs at the limit where ACP passes. Thus, no failed test and no refunds.

@Cate I'm assuming you're a business associate for an employer plan sponsor of a covered entity (i.e., a self-insured group health plan). The point of confusion here probably stems from the fact the enrollment/disenrollment information (that does not include any substantial clinical information) is not PHI if it is maintained by the employer. That information is considered an employment record held by the plan sponsor (not a covered entity) rather than PHI held by the plan (covered entity). In this case, you are not the employer. You are the TPA acting as a business associate to the employer's covered entity health plan. Therefore, I agree with you that the enrollment information is PHI and cannot be disclosed absent an authorization from the adult child. Note that there are exceptions where a CE/BA can disclose PHI to a family member. The details depend on the capacity of the individual. Overview here: https://www.theabdteam.com/blog/disclosing-phi-to-family-members-under-hipaa/ Relevant cites below-- 45 CFR §160.103: (2) Protected health information excludes individually identifiable health information: (i) In education records covered by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, as amended, 20 U.S.C. 1232g; (ii) In records described at 20 U.S.C. 1232g(a)(4)(B)(iv); (iii) In employment records held by a covered entity in its role as employer; and (iv) Regarding a person who has been deceased for more than 50 years. 67 Fed. Reg. 53181, 53208 (Aug. 14, 2002): While the standard enrollment and disenrollment transaction does not include any substantial clinical information, the information provided as part of the transaction may indicate whether or not tobacco use, substance abuse, or short, long-term, permanent, or total disability is relevant, when such information is available. However, the Department clarifies that, in disclosing or maintaining information about an individual’s enrollment in, or disenrollment from, a health insurer or HMO offered by the group health plan, the group health plan may not include medical information about the individual above and beyond that which is required or situationally required by the standard transaction and still qualify for the exceptions for enrollment and disenrollment information allowed under the Rule. 65 Fed. Reg. 82461, 82496 (Dec. 28, 2000): The preamble to the Transactions Rule noted that plan sponsors of group health plans are not covered entities and, therefore, are not required to use the standards established in that regulation to perform electronic transactions, including enrollment and disenrollment transactions. We do not change that policy through this rule. Plan sponsors that perform enrollment functions are doing so on behalf of the participants and beneficiaries of the group health plan and not on behalf of the group health plan itself. For purposes of this rule, plan sponsors are not subject to the requirements of § 164.504 regarding group health plans when conducting enrollment activities.