Leaderboard

Recognizing at least the point Luke Bailey describes (and recognizing a possibility of several others): Consider that the charitable organization needs its lawyers’ advice, including an executive-compensation lawyer’s advice. Consider that each executive needs her lawyers’ advice. A payroll-services provider might have good legal-protection and business reasons for limiting its services.

My understanding is that a plan that merges into another must be up to date and that is something IRS specifically looks at. Line 13 on Form 5307 asks if plan was involved in a merger (among other things) and the instructions then say what additional information must be attached: Line 13. Attach a statement that provides the following for the plans involved: 1. Name of plans, 2. Type of plan, 3. Date of merger, consolidation, spinoff, or a transfer of plan assets or liabilities, and 4. Verification that each plan involved was qualified at the time of the merger, consolidation, spinoff, or a transfer of plan assets or liabilities. If plans are pre-approved w/o modification and/or individually designed such that there are no determination letter submissions, that does not eliminate this requirement.

Which can be eliminated by making an election under 4972 c.

I would not suggest for a DBP regardless. Assuming a 415 max benefit formula for max deduction and you then get a 100% or 200% return on assets - there go your deductions, and if your near the plan's end life/termination (or owner dies) now you have excess asset and excise tax problems. Flip side, you experience a 50% or 75% loss - now your MRC jumps and plan may become unaffordable. If sole prop wanted to roll the bitcoin dice, I would do only in a Roth IRA or 401(k) - assuming, of course, compliance with the requirements laid out by Peter.

Among other points to consider: If ERISA governs the plan (which might result if there is a non-owner participant, including an eligible employee), the trustee or other fiduciary must maintain the indicia of ownership of the plan’s bitcoin inside the jurisdiction of the district courts of the United States. ERISA § 404(b), 29 U.S.C. § 1104(b). If the retirement plan’s sponsor, administrator, and trustee (with perhaps one human acting in all those roles) seek to maintain the plan as tax-qualified, the trustee might take steps to assure that the trustee, as the plan trust’s trustee, owns the bitcoin. See Internal Revenue Code of 1986 [26 U.S.C.] § 401(a)(2); 26 C.F.R. § 1.401-2, § 1.401(a)-2. Further, the trustee might take steps to assure that the trustee’s ownership of the bitcoin is within the jurisdiction of a State’s court. See 26 C.F.R. § 1.401-1(a)(3). The plan’s administrator and trustee might consider valuation so each Form 5500 report and each actuary’s certificate would report (or refer to) a correct value.

Agreed---de minimis is also misspelled

Catch22PGM, your post would indicate that the exec is supposed to put his own salary deferral under vesting and not get a match? That does not work. IRS will not accept that there is a risk of forfeiture.

A plan can be "qualified" without the documents containing all necessary amendments, where the time to amend is deferred ither statutorily or regulatorily. Keep in mind that a merged plan still exists, and will be amended (timely) when the combined plan is amended.

Nope.

I wouldn't reduce the deferral excess allocation, but refund it. I'm not a big fan of mistake of fact processing. Who is making sure the participant is being "made whole" outside the plan? That the deferrals will be paid to the EE, but without doubling up on the reduction already taken from the deferrals?

If I'm reading Mike's mind correctly (and that's a big if), the concern is that, following the amendment, the accruals in the first plan year are zero, and then something larger than zero in all subsequent plan years. That would not satisfy any of the accrual rules under 411. If you did it in two amendments: 1) change the plan year and freeze accruals, and 2) reinstate accruals effective the first day of the next plan year, I think that would be ok, or at least better. There is always the question about definitely determinable benefits when freezing and unfreezing DB formulas though.

Yes, as long as you are a qualified individual within the meaning of the CARES Act. Code 4 means you are the beneficiary of a death benefit. Notice 2020-50 section 1.C states that "any distribution received by a qualified individual as a beneficiary can be treated as a coronavirus-related distribution."

No, deductions don't carry over like that. They can be deducted in the fiscal year deposited, or the preceding fiscal year if deposited before the due date of the tax return, but they can't be deducted in a subsequent fiscal year. There might be exceptions if the deposit exceeded the maximum deductible amount, but I am not sure.

Yes. No.

I don't think so. General rule of 404, contributions are deductible in the year made.

Just a guess, did employees elect a fix dollar amount per pay period? Like $50 per pay period on the election form but some payroll they have no compensation and payroll is saying they "owe" that amount for the payroll they had no compensation? I agree with Bird. If that's their position it's a stupid one. It might make some sense in the case of health care premiums but I can't see where it would make sense for retirement plan contributions.

Taking an educated guess that this is a SIMPLE? Payroll companies are the bane of our existence...WTF does it mean to accrue contributions from a $0 paycheck?! IMO this is "simple" - if someone has a paycheck and has elected a $ or %, you withhold that $ or % from that paycheck, period. No paycheck, no withholding, no "accrual." Anything else is stupid.

To address the original question of "How does the CARES Act RMD waiver affect a participant who would have been required to commence distributions by 4/1/2021," this is addressed in Notice 2020-51.

An individual born after June 30, 1949 and before January 1, 1950 would turn 70½ in 2020 and 72 in 2021. An individual born after December 31, 1949 and before July 1, 1950 would turn 70½ in 2020 and 72 in 2022.

If the employee turned 70.5 in 2020, then their RBD is 4/1 following the year they turn 72, under the SECURE Act.

If there are no accruals under the DB plan, then there should be no need to aggregate it with the DC plan for nondiscrimination testing.

Typically, "my plans" have small sums related to late deferrals. If the amount was large, I could and would justify the expense a client would need to pay. However, when your penalty tax adds up to something like $15 on late deferrals that do not total $1,000, it is pretty hard to justify what would need to be charge to provide for the filing. I do see your point though. I am guessing, from the OP, I am not alone in this regard.