Leaderboard

There was also environmental Armageddon going on all over the country, so if you were in an area that had a Federal weather disaster you may have an extension for that as well. Good luck.

After years of reading your excellent commentary, I am glad that I have something to offer in return: See paragraph (7) of Section 9.03 of Rev Proc 2021-37. Amendments that will not cause an Adopting Employer to lose reliance on an Opinion Letter include "(7) amendments to the administrative provisions in the plan (such as provisions relating to investments, plan claims procedures, or the Adopting Employer's contact information), provided the amended provisions are not in conflict with any other provisions of the plan... and do not cause the plan to fail to satisfy the § 403(b) Requirements ..." Hope this is helpful!

The problem is that the law here is not entirely clear, and the IRS has yet to issue any regulations under 404(o) that would provide guidance. The rule is that the liability resulting from any increase on behalf of HCEs which is adopted or effective, whichever is later, within the last 2 years is not included in the cushion amount. The problem is that it is not defined how "last 2 years" is measured. Is it 2 years ending on the valuation date? At BOY? On any date within the plan year? You had an amendment adopted (let's say) 12/15/2021 and effective 1/1/2021 which increased benefits for HCEs. You also mentioned you're using an EOY val date, so that amendment has to be taken into account for the 12/31/2021 valuation (since it was adopted before the valuation date). However the amendment only increased the pay credits, so it would have no effect on the 12/31/2021 funding target, therefore it would have no effect on the cushion amount. For the 12/31/2022 valuation, the 12/15/2021 amendment was clearly within the last 2 years so the increases added by the amendment for HCEs can not be taken into account for the cushion amount. In other words, determine the HCEs' hypothetical account balances as of 1/1/2022 as if the plan was still frozen, and use those to calculate the funding target for your cushion. For the 12/31/2023 valuation it gets tricky. The 12/15/2021 adoption date is not in the last 2 years if you measure from the valuation date, but it would be if you measured from almost any other date in the plan year. What if the amendment had been adopted on 12/31/2021 instead? Then there would be a stronger argument in favor of treating it as being within the 2-year period. A 12/15 vs a 12/31 date would make no difference for almost any other purpose under the Code, so it seems strange that it would make a big difference here. If you want another argument, since the funding target is based on the accrued at the beginning of the year, maybe the 2-year period should be measured from the beginning of the year? The law is unclear.

RMDs for 2020 were suspended and that included folks who turned 70 1/2 in 2019 who had a RBD of 4/1/2020. 2021 was clearly required by 12/31/2021 and he obviously has another due by 12/31/2022 for 2022. Assuming this is a DC plan or IRA and not a DB plan.

david, my suspicion is that essentially that is how it should be handled. But I think we'll need to fit that within the court's rules, which may or may not be difficult.

If your taxes were on extension, you might be able to rely on that extension to also extend the 5500 deadline. In that case you could tell the IRS you neglected to check that box on the 5500. (But it's gotta be true, of course!)

Luke, could you avoid the 1099 question by: segregating the $$ amount into a separate account (ie, not actually distributed), and informing the court of such action, and with distribution (and 1099) pending until the court makes its decision?

Another retirement plan’s administrator that filed a Form 5500 report on 2021 without an independent qualified public accountant’s opinion is Trump Payroll Corp., the sponsor and administrator of the Trump Payroll Corp. 401(k) / Profit Sharing Plan. See pdf page 22 of 23. (I didn’t look for this; I stumbled across it while searching for a different plan.) Trump Payroll Corp 401k 2021 5500 20221017112257NAL0029732609001.pdf

Granting service for eligibility and vesting for service with another entity would not be a problem, subject to nondiscrimination but since there are no NHCEs you'd be fine from that standpoint. But unless you have a controlled group or affiliated service group I think using the compensation from the prior entity is problematic under the exclusive benefit rule and also don't believe you would be able to use it for establishing a 3 year high salary for 415 limits. Someone else might have a more aggressive position. If so I'd be curious to see what citations would be used to support it.

You can find some good info in the Reporting Compliance Enforcement Manual. That said, there is a disclaimer on an earlier page that states that the manual is for internal use only and does not confer on any person a right to rely on any policy or procedure therein. So, its strictly for our reading pleasure. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/about-ebsa/our-activities/enforcement/oca-manual/chapter-8 Chapter 8 lists letter types and I believe what we are discussing is a notice of rejection. Notice of Rejection NOR Defined Which Cases The NOR is used on deficient filer cases. Analyst Action Period If first correspondence: Within 15 days of assignment if a merge file for automatic letter generation has been created. If no such file exists, then 30 days from assignment. If Inquiry was issued: Within 30 days from the receipt of a response or the expiration of the response period, whichever is less. Preceded By The NOR can either be preceded by an Inquiry letter, or be the first correspondence. Followed By A closing memo and Notice of Satisfactory Filing if the issues are resolved. Otherwise, a Notice of Intent to Assess a Penalty. Response Period The filer has 45 days from the date of the letter. Closing Reasons Administrative, Bankrupt/Terminated, Undeliverable, No Deficiency, Filer Has Demonstrated that the Filing Was Satisfactory, A Filing Was Not Required. Certified? The NOR is ALWAYS mailed certified or overnight delivery. The green card or other proof of delivery must be attached to the letter. Dated? The NOR is not dated by the analyst, unless instructed otherwise. Signed By The analyst Review Block? Yes As with all letters, the official template is located on the L drive. It is required that this version be used. Usage of different versions may result in the case being returned to the analyst. The purpose of issuing the NOR is to notify filers of deficiencies in their annual report filings submitted to the Department and to afford them the opportunity to voluntarily comply with the required rules and regulations. The goal is to receive an acceptable amended annual report filing without advancing to the next level of correspondence, which may result in penalties. If an Inquiry letter was issued on a Deficient filer case, and a satisfactory response is not received within the required time period, the next step is the issuance of a NOR. The NOR includes all the reporting and disclosure deficiencies noted by the analyst. The NOR requires a response from the plan administrator within 45 days of the date of the NOR. The 45-day period is statutorily required pursuant to Section 104(a)(5) of ERISA which provides the plan administrator 45 days to submit a revised annual report filing satisfactory to the Department of Labor before any further enforcement action can be taken. Upon receipt of a response to the NOR, the analyst shall perform a review of the information submitted to determine whether: The plan administrator has corrected all of the deficiencies cited in the NOR and submitted an acceptable amended annual report filing; and The response was received timely, within 45 days of the date of the NOR. It is the policy of OCA to use the postmark date of the response to the NOR as the receipt date. If all of the deficiencies cited in the NOR have been satisfactorily corrected, the analyst will close the case and prepare a Notice of Satisfactory Filing and a Case Closing Memo. If the plan administrator fails to respond to the Notice of Rejection within the 45-day period, or fails to provide a revised annual report filing satisfactory to the Department, the analyst will issue a Notice of Intent to Assess a Penalty. This also applies if the filer sends the correction after the 45-day response period but before the NOI has been issued.

The more I think about it, the email seems like a courtesy. I wonder how many of those emails that are sent relate to the sponsr at Bundled Provider, Inc. who just submitted without realizing the pdf needed to be attached. I'll bet it;s a fair amount. And then there are those that were legitimately late, but now that the audit is finished, the amended was never done. That's also common. We have definitely followed up with the auditors and gotten the response "oh we finished that 6 weeks ago!"

ONLY IF separation occurred after age 55 does the code 2 exception apply, one cannot age into the age 55 exception. This was the old early retirement provision exception in the code that then got modified to treat people the same whether or not their plans had early retirement provisions.

not words I expected to see in the same post Luke! I'd say leave such humor attempts to the actuaries, but ...

Per the regulation (See 29 C.F.R. 2560.502c-2(b)(3)), you've got 45 days from the date of the notice, and penalties will begin accruing as of the day following the end of the 45-day period if you don't file the IQPA by the end of the 45-day period. I doubt the DOL will not follow that rule. My guess is they should have told you that in the letter, but maybe they have decided to be more generous than their reg. Seems very unlikely. Does the letter cite the reg? If so, that may be their way of informing you of the deadline.

Albany, assuming there is a refund, remind the HCE, that getting a refund isn't the worst thing to happen. The worst thing to happen is choosing to defer less and passing the test. Because that means he/she COULD have deferred more. Getting a refund means they deferred the maximum allowed by law.