Leaderboard

yes

For an ERISA-governed plan, “the documents and instruments governing the plan” (ERISA § 404(a)(1)(D)) provide who may be a participant’s beneficiary and which beneficiary designations are or are not recognized. In my experience, a typical plan does not preclude naming an alien, even a nonresident alien. Different Federal income tax withholding regulations, rates, procedures, and forms apply for a plan’s distribution to a non-US person. Among other points, the payer would require a distributee to certify an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN). Those 9-digit numbers are issued by the Internal Revenue Service. https://www.irs.gov/forms-pubs/about-form-w-8 https://www.irs.gov/individuals/individual-taxpayer-identification-number

Keep reading that IRS page, a couple of Qs down: How much of the contributions made to employee's SEP-IRAs may be deducted on the business's tax return? The most that may be deducted on a business’s tax return for contributions to the employees' SEP-IRAs is the lesser of the contributions or 25% of the compensation (compensation for each employee is limited to $305,000 in 2022, $290,000 in 2021, $285,000 in 2020 and $280,000 in 2019, and subject to annual cost-of-living adjustments) paid to all the participants during the year. Elective deferrals made for the employees are not subject to the 25% of compensation limit. Self-employed individuals must make a special computation to figure out their maximum deduction for these contributions. When figuring the deduction for contributions made to the SEP-IRA, compensation is net earnings from self-employment which takes into account the following deductions; (a) the deduction for one-half of self-employment tax and (b) the deduction for contributions to the SEP-IRA. See the Instructions to Form 5305A-SEPPDF and Publication 560 for details on determining this deduction. As Bri says, they are just telling you the individual limit.

Only the excess transferred over is a "real" transfer for lines 8j and 13 purposes. The rollovers are treated like you'd do for normal 5500 stuff, on the benefit payments value line 8d. Look at it as, you're presenting the financial summary, all the gains and payouts and contributions net to the final 100K, and you show that as a transfer out on 8j so that the assets balance to zero. Then on 13c you show where that 100k went.

Isn't that saying just that the annual additions limit is 100%? So if the person defers 90% of pay to the SARSEP, the employer contribution will be capped at 10% for 415 purposes....

This issue came up with a client of mine. Per the IRS guidance: Fixing the mistake To fix the mistake of not following an employee’s election to designate the contribution as a Roth contribution you must transfer the deferrals, adjusted for earnings, from the pre-tax account to the Roth account. There are two options on how to report this transfer: The employer issues a corrected Form W-2 and Marcie must file an amended Form 1040 for the year of the failure (2013). The employer includes the amount transferred from the pre-tax to the Roth account in Marcie’s compensation in the year it’s transferred (2014). If the employer elects, it may compensate Marcie for the additional amount she owes in income tax in 2014. This must be included in Marcie’s 2014 income. The client opted for #2 and is now running into an issue... their payroll company is saying they aren't able to transfer the amount without having SS and medicare be taxed again. Has anyone else run into this?

I have multiple clients a client who give 10% profit sharing. Another who did 15% for decades (until they got bought out). Clients want what they want, our job is to help the get it if it's legal.

We can't set up all the new plans, so we're grateful for the silly people that screw things up and enable us to grow via takeovers.

Yes you do!

Possibly the "first few weeks" rule of 1.415(c)-2(e)(2)?

And a filing was due for each plan the FIRST year that COMBINED assets exceeded $250,000, so make sure there aren't any delinquent filings requiring correction.

There is a list of assets "required" under PPA (very few do it, in part because the DOL never came out with regs that they were required to issue within 6 months...this was the PPA of 2006). Not the list of companies holding investments on the SAR. Yes.

To the first bullet, that just usually goes on the SAR. But the SAR is not needed for EZ plans, right? To the second: are EZ plans subject to the vesting standards of ERISA 203? From the 2021 8955-SSA instructions: "Sponsors and administrators of government, church, and other plans that are not subject to the vesting standards of section 203 of ERISA (including plans that cover only owners and their spouses or cover only partners and their spouses) may elect to file Form 8955-SSA voluntarily." (emphasis mine) So, does this mean they MAY but don't HAVE to file one? (And why would you want to file one voluntarily? And you don't even have to give all the info: "If such a plan administrator so elects [to file voluntarily], the plan administrator is encouraged to provide as much information as possible, but no specific requirements are imposed."

To tax-qualify under Internal Revenue Code § 401(a) and for other U.S. tax law reasons, the plan’s trustee should be a U.S. person. If the plan were ERISA-governed, a fiduciary would obey ERISA § 404(b)’s command to maintain the indicia of all plan assets within the jurisdiction of U.S. Federal courts. Even for a plan not ERISA-governed, a prudent trustee might maintain in the United States (and, preferably, in the State in which the plan’s trust has its situs) the record of the UK company’s securities the plan’s trust owns. That includes a certificate (if there is one). If there is no established and efficient market for the securities the plan’s trust invests in, consider what valuation expert the plan’s administrator or trustee would engage to set—at least yearly, and whenever needed midyear to allow a transaction—an imaginary fair-market value for the securities of the UK company.

As long as the formula is written into the plan doc, then I agree you are good on the ADP and ACP safe harbor.

This will NOT meet the requirements for a discretionary ACP safe harbor match. It should be ok for a fixed match however.

I reviewed my Empower account. They accept decimals, but the total still needs to equal 100%. 33.33% for three beneficiaries is not accepted by the website.

I think it is a legit ongoing plan expense, especially if the change resulted in lower ongoing fees to participants. If such fee reductions are percentage-based, then it would be appropriate to charge on a pro-rata basis, IMO. Having said that, I think I'd urge the sponsor to pay.

I would say it depends on the reason for the RK conversion. Was is necessary because (1) the RK dropped the client, (2) because the employer did a fiduciary due diligence RFP which resulted in a decision to change RK, or (3) some discretionary decision which may have originated for some reason? I think (1) definitely and (2) likely could be situations where these conversion fees could be paid from the plan. If (3), I think not. If the fees are substantial, then getting legal counsel to opine might be warranted. If the fees are not substantial then I say play it safe and do not pay from plan unless clearly supportable (1).