Leaderboard

There is a set of detailed procedures—handled by the Clerk of the House, or the Secretary of the Senate (or both)—for carefully checking and conforming a bill’s text, as affected by all amendments. Once the text is conformed, the bill is printed on parchment. Some certifications about an enrolled bill are signed by the presiding officers of both bodies of Congress. Then, the bill is presented to the President as the Constitution’s Article I, section 7 calls for. https://archives-democrats-rules.house.gov/archives/lph-enroll.htm Preparing and signing an enrolled bill can take time, perhaps especially near the end of a Congress (and particularly if a presiding officer is not in or near the District of Columbia). But because the one week’s continuation of appropriations runs out this week, one imagines H.R. 2617 will be presented this week. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/2617

Yup.

Wishing you all happy holidays and great, prosperous New Year. The best think tank ever.

If enacted in 2022 would it mean that 401(k) plans could be set up for sole proprietors in 2023 for 2022 on account of this: Section 317, Retroactive first year elective deferrals for sole proprietors. Under the SECURE Act, an employer may establish a new 401(k) plan after the end of the taxable year, but before the employer’s tax filing date and treat the plan as having been established on the last day of the taxable year. Such plans may be funded by employer contributions up to the employer’s tax filing date. Section 317 allows these plans, when they are sponsored by sole proprietors or singlemember LLCs, to receive employee contributions up to the date of the employee’s tax return filing date for the initial year. Section 317 is effective for plan years beginning after the date of enactment of this Act.

I think the plan document will have a section about employees moving from one class to another. No return of deferrals. The employee was eligible at the time. wow, what a messy situation..... IF......... I would say W-2 wages if needed a top-heavy and gateway as the K-1 earned income is for non-eligible class. Keep digging.... Hopefully some others will chime in.....

It's the IRS interpretation. In RR 2004-13, they said If that interpretation still stands, then a plan which has different eligibility for deferrals and safe harbor match would not satisfy 416(g)(4)(H). There are 3 sections of SECURE 2.0 that affected sec. 416 and I don't think any of them would require the IRS to change this interpretation. SECURE 2.0 sec. 310 amends sec. 416(c)(2) to say that employees who have not satisfied the minimum age and service requirements of sec. 410(a) do not have to be considered when determining if the plan satisfies the top heavy minimum. That's great, but it does not help with respect to employees who have satisfied minimum age and service but who otherwise are not getting a top heavy minimum under the safe harbor match plan (maybe because they did not make any deferrals). SECURE 2.0 sec. 121 amends 416(g)(4)(H) to state that "starter" 401(k) plans are not considered top heavy. Not relevant here. SECURE 2.0 sec. 125 amends 416(g)(4)(H) to state that a plan shall not be considered a top heavy plan "solely because such plan does not provide nonelective or matching contributions to [long-term part-time employees]." Again, not relevant here since the concern is with employees who have satisfied the minimum age and service requirements. This does help in the case of a plan that normally applies age 21/1 year of service eligibility for deferrals and safe harbor match, but now has to allow LTPT employees to participate for deferrals. However, for a plan that allows immediate entry for deferrals but has a 1 year of service requirement for match, it would not fall under this exception since it does not "solely" not provide a match to the LTPT employees. Again, I hope I am wrong and the IRS comes down with a favorable interpretation.

The current continuing resolution expires 12/30/22, so before the CR expires. While it passed both house and senate, it can take time to get 5000 pages ready for signature.

The 4/1/2022 distribution is for the 2021 distribution calendar year. It uses the 12/31/2020 account balance.

yes, it would be 411(d)(6) violation. You have to preserve the accrued benefit as well as optional forms based on the $1,888. What is the reason you want to change the AE? If it is to "solve" the testing, I believe you are "stuck" for 2022. For 2023 you can change to 417(e) or GAR94 table before the Pay Credit is accrued and you should be OK (I am guessing the 2023 Pay Credit will bring you over $1,888).

Without digging into the rules on this, my gut feeling is that you are going to have to preserve the existing distribution options on the accrued benefit as of the date of the amendment. In other words, the life annuity (assuming the plan defines the normal form of benefit as a life annuity) amount at normal retirement age can't be less than $1,888. Likewise for any other optional forms of benefit. Chances are with one more year of accrual, the accrued benefit under the new definition of actuarial equivalence will be far more than $1,888 so you really won't have to worry about it ever.

No. Age 72 applies for individuals whose date of birth was on or after July 1, 1949 (i.e., attained age 70½ on or after January 1, 2020). Based on the date of birth of 11/11/1949, age 72 applies, so the first distribution calendar year was 2021 and RBD was 4/1/2022.

Excellent, very excellent. That sounds good enough to me! The sole impediment to immediate eligibility will be the audit now!

austin3515, if it helps you, here’s the whole text of SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022 § 310: SEC. 310. APPLICATION OF TOP HEAVY RULES TO DEFINED CONTRIBUTION PLANS COVERING EXCLUDABLE EMPLOYEES. (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (2) of section 416(c) is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: “(C) APPLICATION TO EMPLOYEES NOT MEETING AGE AND SERVICE REQUIREMENTS.— Any employees not meeting the age or service requirements of section 410(a)(1) (without regard to subparagraph (B) thereof) may be excluded from consideration in determining whether any plan of the employer meets the requirements of subparagraphs (A) and (B).”. (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply to plan years beginning after December 31, 2023.

One provision indicates what you need to qualify for a contribution (0 hours). The other provision tells you how much you'll actually get if you qualify (167 a month, essentially). It's easier than defining 12 different groups getting 1/12, 2/12, 3/12, etc., for groups of employees contingent on their month of termination. But I don't see a disconnect in their logic.

Does the S-corp have enough cash to increase his W-2 via year-end "bonus"? (That may raise other tax issues ... but it would allow a higher contribution.)

Also, if it's a defined benefit plan (DBP), where a valuation needs to be done to determine the contribution that will be deposited by that tax return due date, you'll want to get the document done and signed far enough in advance. I recommend anyone considering a DBP retroactive to 2022 to put their tax return on extension for the extra time but make the decision and get the document done in the first or second quarter of 2023.

Amen Peter. Sometimes the disconnection with the world is unbelievable. Such a good example of that. Another is when they think it's feasible to have additional catch-up contributions at age 60, 61, 62 and 63. And login.gov were the links that I deleted (at least that is the text I didn't exam the link).

FYI--the updated version of the Form 720 with the $2.79 PCORI rate is out: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f720.pdf

Below is the basis for my comment, This comes from the Federal Register, 2013 DFVCP update. DFVCP does not extend relief to a plan sponsor for a deficient/incomplete filing. I may be interpreting this incorrectly. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2013-01-29/pdf/2013-01616.pdf Section 2—Scope, Eligibility and Effective Date .01 Scope. The DFVC Program described in this Notice provides relief from assessment of civil penalties under section 502(c)(2) of ERISA applicable to plan administrators who fail or refuse to file timely annual reports. Relief under this Program does not extend to penalties that may be assessed for annual reports that are determined by the Department of Labor (Department) to be incomplete or otherwise deficient. (emphasis is mine) This answers the OP question which comes from Section 3 in the above link: (a) Requirement To File The Delinquent Annual Return/Report. The plan administrator must file in accordance with this section a complete Form 5500 Series annual return/report, including any required schedules and attachments, for each plan year for which the plan administrator is seeking relief under this DFVC Program.

I'm not sure it's true that filing an incomplete 5500 precludes DFVCP. The IRS Website below certainly makes it sound like Incomplete = Late. "Late" can be fixed with DFVCP until DOL sends a Notice of Intent to Assess a Penalty (See DOL DFVCP Fact Sheet.) https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/irs-filing-notices-for-form-5500-5558-or-5500ez