Leaderboard

No. NO. If they had an account at XYZ Bank and wrote checks from the XYZ Bank account would you call XYZ Bank the payor? I hope not. That's all that is happening here; the brokerage firm wrote checks or transferred money under instructions of the trustee. I don't find it unusual at all.

5500EZ instructions, page 4 "Do not enter a...SSN"

Yes but he is ill advised to do so. An EIN will be necessary when the first 5500-ez must be filed. In addition, most investments will require a taxpayer ID. It is not advisable to use an individual's social security number as the taxpayer ID for a qualified plan investment.

The SECURE Act age 72 RMD provision is "optional" in the sense that a plan can still keep all its existing substantive RMD terms that apply at age 70.5 as a matter of optional plan design. Any distributions forced out between 70.5 to 72 would not be required minimum distributions, they would just be regular eligible rollover distributions forced out by discretionary plan terms (that happen to align in every respect with the RMD rules, except still tied to age 70.5 instead of 72). No distributions would be required minimum distributions until the participant reached age 72, at which point all subsequent distributions made under those provisions would be RMDs.

Yes, let me be clear with my statement above now in bold. When I said it would be the broker's EIN it would only be true if the broker used its EIN to deposit the withholding and in effect held itself out as the paying agent for the plan. There are banks and funds that do that. As part of the service they will issue the check or ACH, they will withhold when needed and issue the 1099-R. A number of our clients hire such paying agents. In many cases in the ESOP world if the ESOP has a bank as a professional trustee that bank will issue the payment, withhold, and issue the 1099-R. I believe you can hire Penchecks to do that. I know you can hire Reliance Trust Company to be a paying agent. However, the mere fact the check was written by the broker doesn't mean the are the paying agent. Like the last two comments by Bird and RatherBeGolfing make clear. Sorry, if part of my comment above caused confusion.

This. The payor is the PLAN, not the brokerage firm.

Do you have a source on this? EACA requires a notice to participants before the beginning of the year, therefore it can't be adopted mid-year. The earliest you could make it effective at this point would be 1/1/2022 (assuming calendar year). Not eligible for the tax credit in that case. The EACA has to apply uniformly to all employees unless they have an affirmative election.

Look to the minimum benefit section of the plan. You want to insert language something like the following: there shall be a minimum cash balance hypothetical account established for partner 2 as of x date in the following amount (put in the amount you want).

Not without an 11g amendment.

For the refund of the amount in excess of 402(g) I would report Box 1 ($1,000), Box 2 ($0), Box 5 ($1,000) and code BP For the gain Box 1, ($200), Box 2 ($200), Box 5 $0, code B8. (Though I'm mot sure the B needs to be attached to the earnings, it may just be code 8).

We work with a TPA who used McKay Hochman for EGTRRA and PPA. The provision you are looking for was in an amendment to the Basic Plan Document, specifically First Amendment to the McKay Hochman Co., Inc. Prototype Defined Contribution Plan Basic Plan Document #03. It states: “If a Participant completes or has completed a Beneficiary designation in which the Participant designates his or her Spouse as the Beneficiary and the Participant and the Participant’s Spouse are legally divorced subsequent to the date of such designation, the designation of such Spouse as a Beneficiary hereunder will be deemed null and void unless the Participant, subsequent to the legal divorce, reaffirms the designation by completing a new Beneficiary designation form.” I realize you may be working with a different BPD, but hopefully this will help you find the provision in your particular document.