Leaderboard

ERISA Online Book (EOB), Chapter 7, Section XVI, part E - Timing of Contributions has a well written explanation (not sure if I am allowed to copy the language here). Otherwise, I agree with Calavera

If this CPA really thinks that it cannot be deducted for 2021, your client may need another CPA.

Hi, Plan is terminating due to stock sale - the sale date is 05/13, the plan will terminate by 05/12. The term date is 5/12 (thurs) and pay date is 5/13 (Fri) terminating plan will deduct/withhold the contributions on 5/10 (tues) I believe they can still post to the term plan since the deductions were withheld prior to the term date correct? or is it pay date driven? Thanks

As long as you don't have any 411 cutback issues with the MP plan and you preserve the MP characteristics of the MP source money in the surviving PS plan I don't see why not.

I would avoid designing a plan this way, but I think you could read the regs to support that approach. 1.401(a)(4)-9(b)(2)(ii)(B) On the other hand, paragraph (b)(2)(iv)(A) suggests maybe you can't: Probably safest to use the earlier of the two entry dates for measuring pay as a participant, and using that for all purposes, if you are going to do this.

I would ask under what authority this is allowed. These are not excess contributions being removed to a suspense account. These are not non-vested funds being moved to the forfeiture account. The funds are not being used to offset a fee. This reeks of outright theft from the participant.

Misleading, spectacularly so, without context below. 4.72.9.2 (02-26-2015) Plans Covered by Survivor Annuity Requirements The QJSA/QOSA/QPSA requirements apply to all DB plans and any defined contribution plan to which IRC 412 applies (such as money purchase plans). See IRC 401(a)(11).

I'm assuming the termination amendment/resolution was a freeze & term since you are worried about an additional year of service? The freeze portion would not be affected by a change in the termination date. The PBGC has a complex because they're not a regulatory agency, but they're allowed to write their own rules; and it's usually best to conform to their timelines as much as possible. The designed termination date is just a counting tool, the Plan itself doesn't terminate until it's 0 - $0. Modify the term to conform to the PBGC and file an "amended" Form 500. You may or may not have needed a '21 valuation to begin with, your actuary will direct you there.

At the present time, it is Relius for the most part. Some plans may still be at FTW, but new plans at FuturePlan are on the Relius document. Ascensus bought 45 TPA firms and each of them may have had their own document preferences prior to the acquisition. Most changes are being made during restatement periods. Anything I can help you with? Patricia Neal Jensen, JD, VP FuturePlan National Documents Team Nonprofit Plan Leader

There are two issued. First is whether the trail court will enter a QDRO 12 years after the entry of the divorce? Second is whether or not, even if the QDRO can be entered, can benefits be lost due to the delay? There are some states that impose a statute of limitation on how long you have to submit a QDRO after divorce. There are some states that adhere to the doctrine of laches mentioned by by QDROPhile where there is a delay by one party that causes hardship to the other party. There are some states like my home state of Maryland that treat a QDRO as an enforcement tool, like a garnishment or an attachment, and there is no limit to when a QDRO can be entered. There are some states where the ability to file a late QDRO depends on whether or not the Judgment of Divorce reserved jurisdiction for the entry of QDROs. Aside from all of that, if the Plan involved falls under the Federal Law ERISA that covers most private company plans, and if you and your husband married and he then retired, then notwithstanding the entry of a QDRO, the survivor annuity benefits will not be enforceable since you, the new wife, will be entitled to such benefit. See See the 1997 decision of the US Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, in Hopkins v. AT&T Global Information Solutions at http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9954117838131396049&q=hopkins+at%26T+global&hl=en&as_sdt=2,9 followed by the 5th Circuit in 1999 Rivers v. Central and South West Corporation at http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2296953953561556363&q=rivers+central+and+south+west&hl=en&as_sdt=2,9: Other cases following Hopkins are collected at: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=0&q="Hopkins+v.+AT%26T"&hl=en&as_sdt=20000006 See also Vanderkam v. PBGC, 943 F. Supp.2d, 130 (2013) setting forth a thorough discussion of this issue. And the 2015 case of Dahl v. Aerospace Employees' Retirement Plan, No. 1:15cv611 (JCC/IDD), United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division. Depending on the nature of the Plan the former spouse may have lost survivor annuity benefits by reason of remarriage prior to a certain age, often 55 as in the Military and FERS and CSRS . In some plans, like the Military, the failure of a Former Spouse to file certain paperwork - DD-2656-10 - within 12 months after the divorce will result in a loss of survivor annuity benefits. Some plans may have failed and been taken over by PBGC where the amount of benefits is will be reduced. In come cases, if the Plan Administrator (OPM for example) knows about the Judgment of Divorce awarding pension benefits, even through no Order has been filed, the Plan will not start to Pay pension benefits to the Employee until the matter is resolved. The divorce is often communicated to the Employer as the reason for the Employee cancelling his health insurance coverage. We have approximately 175,000 pension and retirement plans in the USA, 163,000 are under ERISA and another 12,000 or so are under various Federal, State, County, City Municipal and International plans. They don't all have uniform rules and procedures. Federal law normally preempts state law, but not always. So to give you a more accurate answer, your lawyer will need to know the exact plan involved and have a detailed timeline. BTW, the ex-wife's lawyer is guilty of malpractice almost everywhere. Good luck.

While ERISA is based in equity, and it may be possible to asset a defense of latches, I suspect the question will be answered in the domestic relations court based on the applicable domestic relations law. If that court issues a domestic relations order, I do not think the plan will entertain any objection because of timeliness. However, if circumstances have changed, the plan will refuse to qualify an order that requires the plan to take an action or provide a benefit that the plan is not designed to do. Sometimes it is impossible to implement the exact original terms because of a change in record keepers or other loss of original relevant data, such as plan balances at the time of the divorce. A domestic relations judge might not look kindly on having to reformulate the order to effect the approximate original terms when the responsible party was dilatory. As a rough approach to the question, I would ask why shouldn’t the original award be implemented, even if 12 years later? What about the settlement and award is now improper or unfair? Many QDROs do not have an actual effect or payment until years after a “timely” entry and qualification.

The formula appears to be a very simple calculation of the account balance divided by the annuity purchase rate. Two of them, in fact, because the disclosure is required for both single life and 100% joint and survivor (assuming spouse the same age as the participant, I think). You calculate the annuity purchase rate using a published interest rate (I think it was 1.2% last time I looked) and the 417(e) mortality applicable to the date of the calculation. I have a recent post where I displayed how my program can be used to do the calculation. However, it shouldn't be necessary to purchase a separate program to do this as every admininstration system will have a method for doing the calculation. I believe C.B. Zeller has published a free excel worksheet that can do the calculations:

Yup the term "1099 employee" doesn't legally exist. You are an independent contractor (IC) or an employee. As pointed out ICs are issued 1099s and employees are issued W-2s. More importantly this isn't something you get to just decide or negotiate. Either a person is an employee under the law or they aren't. If they are an employee issuing them a 1099 just means you are breaking the law by not treating them correctly not that they are ICs. So to answer your question: ASSUMING the ICs are legit there is no coverage issue as they aren't employees and most likely are excluded by the plan provision that allows IC to be excluded. The bigger problems come into existence if the assumption they are properly treated as IC is not right. As pointed out is how much are you responsible for the IC vs employee determination? Also, assuming this plan has a provision that say if the IC are later determined to be employees they are still excluded will make coverage testing a problem. So what do you and your firm need to do to make sure you are protected if this goes bad.

Who has responsibility for determining whether or not payment reported on Form 1099 is proper for the designated persons, who would not be employees if the Form 1099 reporting is proper? If not you, are you sure you will not be implicated and are you willing to accept the suspicious determination and being at least indirectly involved in the potential troubles and recriminations that may well result? If you sleep with dogs you often get up with fleas. Or, is you inquiry inspired because, as suggested by David Rigby, your lower body motor functions are appropriately inspired?

Employees are paid on a W-2; Independent Contractors are paid on a 1099.

Well presumably most of this is old data/reports/etc. that they should have in their files. As for anything current they are requesting what does your service agreement say? And making a request on Wednesday and expecting the request to be filled on Thursday I would not expect to be considered reasonable. I mean I guess you could call the client and say the cost for this rush billing project is $x and we require an immediate retainer of $y before starting the project. And no we will not be responsible for penalties for your failure to not maintain plan records.

Run!

Based on what I've seen I believe it is FIS (Relius), but I can't state that with absolute certainty.