Leaderboard

Yes. Even if she stops working for her husband's company, don't forget to look out for minor children, or community property depending on what state they're in.

Yes for 404. No for 412/430. At least based on what you posted.

Thanks Tom. Appreciate your comment above, and very much appreciate all your comments and support over the years here providing a good mix of levity and guidance. Hey Carol, can you change the title of this post to remove the 2021? If not, that's okay, I'll just start another fresh post when the actual CPI-U for September gets released. The CPI-U for August was published this morning at 273.567, giving us two of the three months needed to determine the 2022 limits. (July was 273.003). September will be published on October 13. The sum of the three CPI-U's from last year, July through September of 2020, was 779.299, for an average of about 259.766. So we're looking at about a 5.24% increase if the 2021 September CPI-U is unchanged from August at 273.567. If that holds, the limits posted above (August 22) should be the 2022 limits. The closest one to change next is the key employee compensation threshold, which should go up to $200,000 if the CPI-U for September is 273.897 or more. Again, all based on Tom's spreadsheet.

Generally you would look at the fund(s) the money was previously invested in.

An default that is a deemed distribution (not an offset) goes on 2g. An offset is an actual distribution and goes on 2e1.

But you have to take into account the Attribution Rules for ownership interest. So may want to re-think the A-org aspect. Why take this risk on -- send the guy to your ERISA attorney. We have a good relationship with ours and he would either 1) if clear cut -- give you the go ahead or say no and 2) if iffy but if he can make the argument -- will directly engage with the client to write the memo giving us cover.

Legally fine. Any "issue" is HR's problem 😁

Under ERISA’s title I, the command to file a yearly report is on the plan’s administrator. Under Internal Revenue Code § 6058, the command to file a yearly information return is on the employer. If the plan’s employer/administrator is a corporation, limited-liability company, registered partnership, or other organization, either agency will pursue any human they assert could have acted to file the Form 5500 report. If the plan’s trustee is a human who would have had knowledge of the employer/administrator’s breach, EBSA can pursue such a trustee for failing to meet a co-fiduciary’s duty under ERISA § 405(a)(3). Even if the corporation or other organization named as the plan’s administrator is legally dissolved, under many States’ laws a dissolved organization still has some powers as needed to wind up the organization’s duties and obligations. Likewise, a former shareholder or member, director or manager, or officer might still have powers to act for the organization. Even if one might lack a power, how would filing a Form 5500 report harm the organization or a third person? Sometimes, EBSA can be assertive. Among other abandoned-plans cases I handled, in one EBSA asserted that a former assistant vice-president who had ended all associations with the employer many years before EBSA’s contact (and also years before the employer/administrator’s business failure and abandoning of the plan) was responsible to administer her former employer’s plan. Even after we showed EBSA proof of her resignations from all possible roles with the former employer, EBSA persisted. They guessed (correctly) that their target would learn that the expense of paying me to fight the Labor department would be much more than the expense of paying me to work the final administration. The recordkeeper and the trustee, also motivated to get rid of the abandoned plan, never questioned that my client lacked authority to instruct them. About “no more money”: Fighting EBSA would chew up many hours of a lawyer’s time, and in many of these situations has little prospect for a successful defense. Many lawyers would want an advance retainer against the first $10,000-worth of time, and would stop work when the advance retainer isn’t replenished. Paying BG5150’s fees to prepare the needed Form 5500 reports might be much less expensive than trying to show EBSA or IRS why they lack a right against the individual.

The correction methods listed in the EPCRS Rev. Proc. are pre-approved correction methods. Other correction methods can be used provided they are reasonable and appropriate [Rev.Proc. 2021-30 6.02(2)]. "Reasonable and appropriate" is a facts and circumstances determination. Also keep in mind that the correction method used must be applied consistently to the same type of failure for the plan year. [6.02(3)] So, if the client wants to provide 100% of the missed deferral, is that reasonable and appropriate? It's a judgement call. If the only ones receiving the correction are HCEs, I think it probably isn't. If it's only going to NHCEs, I think it is. Of course, the IRS can second guess your correction if you use something other than a correction listed in the current Rev. Proc.. The percentage of missed deferral to deposit listed in EPCRS has changed over the years. Prior to Rev. Proc. 2006-27, the IRS pre-approved correction was to use 100%. So, at least at one point, the IRS thought 100% was reasonable and appropriate. Also, you aren't required to use the safe harbor correction of 25% if it applies. You could use the other listed correction of 50% and still be using a pre-approved correction method.

Try VCP