Leaderboard

Employers can post an entry-level job opening (meaning no experience in the employee benefits field is required) at no charge. We're happy to help the industry "prime the pump"!

Another thought is that the 2020 contribution isn't due until 9/15/21. For the 2021 valuation it might be reasonable to assume < 1000 hours, plus the plan will have a gain since there was no accrual in 2020 - add ARPA to all that, and the 2021 MRC will likely be very low. Also, you can probably reduce the 2020 MRC significantly by applying the ARPA changes. Maybe you can't eliminate 2020's MRC, but between 2020 and 2021, total cash outlay can be significantly reduced.

You are correct. And your company SHOULD be more terrified of the consequences or potential liability for knowingly administering a plan in violation of the document (which almost certainly states the parameters of the exclusion) and in violation of the regulations. Refer your supervisor to 1.403(b)-5(b)(4)(ii), and (iii). And in (iii)(B)(1), have them note the "reasonably expects" clause that you alluded to above. The IRS also provided some additional guidance on this subject in IRS Notice 2018-95. Good luck!

This is my prime gripe with EPCRS's correction of this issue. It leaves zero responsibility to the participant. I ask for 5% of my pay taken out, and then nothing happens. Free money baby! I'm almost hoping my ER messes up...

Since we have gone down the rabbit hole already I offer my internally developed worksheet. There is no particular rationale as to why I have 3 columns displayed. It is just a tool of convenience to be able to see, side by side, 3 calculations. I've been told by more than 1 person that I've done something wrong, but when pressed they have not provided clarification. Feel free to use, but if you find something wrong please let me know. 404a7 Limitation Calculation for BenefitsLink.xls

So therefore, because the RMD is expected to resume, it is not ceased and no 8955-SSA would need to be filed. I like that take.

I'd say it didn't "cease" it was "suspended."

chibenefits, I completely agree with XTitan regarding the possibility that upon close inspection you may be able to determine that this was not an nqdc plan, but an std plan. Having said that, if it were an nqdc plan, I don't think that your termination would be covered by the voluntary termination rules, because those rules specifically permit you to pay out early, if all the conditions of the exception are met. You are not paying out, so you do not need that exception. I would be more concerned that, depending on facts and circumstances, if you started a new plan, the "termination" without payout and the new plan would be considered together by the IRS as, in effect, an amendment. E.g., if the "terminated" plan had payout provisions and elections that were undesirable, and then the new plan has a better-thought-out payment scheme, but all the same participants are in the second plan, and they have the same phantom stock amounts, that would seem to me possibly a subterfuge.

Then the maximum on the DB plan would be the greater of 6% of comp, or the amount necessary to satisfy minimum funding; assuming that amount does not exceed the maximum under 404(o). I'll admit I was not considering DC plans with large fixed contributions when I wrote that.

Just to be entirely clear, there is no 6% limit on the deductible contribution to the cash balance plan. When an employer sponsors overlapping DB and DC plans, and the contribution to the (non-PBGC) DB plan exceeds 25% of compensation, then the deduction on the DC plan is limited to 6% of compensation.