Leaderboard

To find court decisions that interpret and apply regarding a retirement plan the United States’ enforcement of a judgment imposing a fine or restitution regarding a crime, a researcher might use a publisher’s annotated version (for example, Westlaw, LexisNexis, Bloomberg Law) of the United States Code. Also, one might use treatises and other secondary sources in Wolters Kluwer’s VitalLaw. One would look for annotations under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3316, 3556, 3663, 3663A, 3664; 28 U.S.C. §§ 3001-3308. To learn some arguments that were presented and rejected, one might read a Second Circuit decision BenefitsLink posted. https://benefitslink.com/src/ctop/us-v-greebel-2dcir-08242022.pdf The participant, Evan Greebel, was a partner in Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP. He was represented by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. The appeals court held that the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act authorizes garnishment of the convict’s retirement plan account, and that the Consumer Credit Protection Act’s 25% limit on a garnishment does not apply. The appeals court did not decide whether the extra 10% tax on a too-early distribution is imposed on garnishment. If an effort an ERISA-governed plan’s administrator, trustee, or other fiduciary might consider would be at the plan’s expense, the fiduciary might want its lawyer’s advice about how much effort and expense is loyal and prudent for the plan’s exclusive purpose of providing the plan’s retirement benefits.

The CPI-U for September 2022 was published with a value of 296.808. Based on Tom Poje's spreadsheet, the dollar limits for 2023 are projected to be: ALL Increased (NOT Official yet, of course): Deferral limit: $22,500 (up from $20,500) Catchup: $7,500 (up from $6,500) Compensation Limit: $330,000 (up from $305,000) Annual Addition Limit: $66,000 (up from $61,000) DB Limit: $265,000 (up from $245,000) HCE: $150,000 (up from $135,000) Key Employee: $215,000 (up from $200,000) Just for reference, the unrounded figures are: Catchup: $7,528.50 Deferral limit: $22,586.50 Compensation Limit: $333,500 Annual Addition Limit: $66,700 DB Limit: $266,800 HCE: $150,688 Key Employee: $216,775

I agree that ADPSH contributions are preferable to relying on QNECs and QMACs, but I hesitate to say that the latter are obsolete. While not every plan product will necessarily contain a preapproved option for making non-corrective QNECs and QMACs, there's nothing to preclude a document architect from presenting drafters with such sources that can be funded ahead of time, i.e., regardless of the outcome of an ADP test. For example, some plans allow prevailing wage contributions to be treated as QNECs, which would allow such contributions to either be used to help pass an ADP test or be used as an offset to an ADPSH nonelective contribution. Such a plan might prefer having an ADP test rather than an ADPSH obligation. In addition, there might be a use for treating ADPSH contributions as a QNEC or QMAC for a plan year that the employer discontinues its ADPSH. There was a time when any ADPSH contributions that had already made for such a year could be automatically treated as being a QNEC or QMAC for that purpose. However, now that plans with QACAs can have deferred vesting on the QACA contribution, employers may be unable to use such contributions to help pass the ADP test unless an amendment is adopted to fully vest the QACA source, i.e., turning the deferred-vesting QACA contribution into a QNEC or QMAC. The biggest problem I see with QMACs and QNECs (and occasionally non-QACA ADPSH contributions) is with people thinking that full vesting is sufficient for calling a contribution a QNEC or a QMAC. I don't know why, but I see many instances of people forgetting about the distribution restrictions that are required for all these contributions. I like the idea of having a plan product that gives me a QNEC or QMAC source that has all the requirements built-in, if only to facilitate quick amendments with reliance when the facts and circumstances change.

That should be the first check. Concerning operational failure or not, it may be that the plan was followed but the CBA was not - although I think a union rep would have been all over that. If plan contribution language is flexible then maybe the only issue is vesting and maybe no one has been directly impacted yet, hence so material conflict between operation and CBA. The 2018 thread Lois provided has a lot of positions/arguments/disagreements but no true consensus, although I think most thought the plan document must govern. If you have nothing else to do this afternoon you can read it but otherwise let's cut to the chase - if the plan does not currently have language that incorporates for CBA then get it amended ASAP to comply with CBA.

You'll probably need to check the definitions/thresholds in the specific state statute creating the program, which can be tied to things like the number of employees reported to the state's employment agencies, etc.

Agree with you that EZ instructions do not seem to support prior TPA's position. Being a C-corp with multiple owners seems to kick it out. Instructions say an S-corp 2%+ shareholder is considered a partner in a partnership. If that applied to C-corp as well then the instructions would have stated such.

It would - at worst you could do the amendment to suspend the match on one day and then adopt the 4% non-elective the next day - but can you really do that? Notice 2020-86 Q&A-8 says you can suspend a plan's safe harbor nonelective contributions during the year, later readopt the 4% nonelective, and still retain the safe harbor. It doesn't say anything about suspending a match and being eligible for this treatment. Given that the IRS chose to specify nonelective in this Q&A - combined with the section of 2016-16 that Belgarath referenced - it seems that you can not get this treatment with a safe harbor match.

I got the following from the EFAST2 FAQ... Q4: How can I submit a delinquent or amended filing? The Form 5500 Series Version Selection Tool will help you determine which version of the Form 5500,5500-SF, or 5500-EZ you should use. Refer to the form-specific instructions for more information on filing requirements. An amended filing should be submitted as a complete replacement of the previously-submitted filing. You will need to resubmit the entire form, with all required schedules and attachments, through EFAST2. You cannot submit just the parts of the filing that are being amended. <underlined is me>

pop in my head once and awhile. Nice to see my spreadsheet still gets used. ha. I contributed something to the pension world. Soc sec will also jump sizably. Over 8.5%, for those of us that plan to start collecting within a year or so. Have almost taken out all of my pre-Roth 401k $, and no taxes. one Roth was permitted I deferred everything there. I remember the arguments presented regular deferral vs Roth, and the conclusion leaned towards regular 401k was better because you would most likely be in a lower income tax bracket. but I don't recall any of the arguments saying your soc sec incomes becomes taxable if you have over a certain amount of income, but all of a sudden that kicks in and the so called advantage disappears, at least in my opinion. anyway, as for me...in May 2021 my PSA count shot up to 16.6 (Anything below 4.0 is considered safe) MRI showed spots on the prostate, and the prognosis was probably cancerous. The doctor expected a "4", the biopsy came back a "1" which means everything is benign. The doctor simply shook his head and couldn't understand those results. Had a couple of priests lay hands on me before the biopsy, and many prayers. Results of my annual physical today was PSA of 3.08. Didn't change my diet, didn't take any medication. No real explanation given for such a dramatic drop in the last 15 months. But I believe it was the prayer. God gave me a wonderful gift.

That sounds as though it would conflict with the 100% as elected, so I'd say that's an operational error to use a different integration level.