Leaderboard

Yes, because it is reportable, and the IRS needs to get their information.

ASC had a great webinar today and provided a list of all changes coming up. i am not sure if I can provide here but you can check their website for the material and recording. Mercer also posted one today and it is on today's BL posting.

Names can be deceiving. If this is truly a dynasty trust than it is irrevocable and attribution is according to actuarial value of beneficial interests. In other words, if D is 50% beneficiary she is deemed to own 37.04%*50% of company. If it is a revocable grantor trust that becomes irrevocable on a later date (e.g. grantor's death), grantor (assumed as D's father) is constructive owner and his ownership is attributed to D. If revocable but non-grantor than attribution same as if irrevocable. First level cut. There may be re-attribution among family members depending on other facts.

Assuming that owners name is the beneficial owner of dynasty trust/owners name then I believe that owners name is considered to own 37.04% of the company. For HCE determination, attribution under §318 a child (both minor and adult) are deemed to own the stock of their parent. Thus by attribution the daughter is deemed to also own 37.04%. The results would be different for §1563 and Controlled Group determinations.

Effective for plan years beginning 2024, this also was changed by Section 315 of SECURE 2.0.

Since the Retirement Equity Act of 1984, an ERISA-governed defined-benefit pension plan’s participant does not elect against a qualified preretirement survivor annuity or a qualified joint and survivor annuity without the participant’s spouse’s consent. ERISA § 205 [29 U.S.C. § 1055] http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:29%20section:1055%20edition:prelim)%20OR%20(granuleid:USC-prelim-title29-section1055)&f=treesort&edition=prelim&num=0&jumpTo=true Also since the Retirement Equity Act of 1984, a qualified domestic relations order may provide a benefit to a participant’s spouse or former spouse. ERISA § 206(d)(3) [29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)] http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:29%20section:1056%20edition:prelim)%20OR%20(granuleid:USC-prelim-title29-section1056)&f=treesort&edition=prelim&num=0&jumpTo=true Neither SECURE 2019 nor SECURE 2022 impairs those provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. If new ERISA § 113 requires a notice or disclosure, it must, among other requirements, compare a single sum to a qualified joint and survivor annuity. As before, how a participant and a spouse negotiate their division of property happens, subject to the QDRO conditions, under law external to the ERISA-governed pension plan.

If you call a lack of guidance hypochondria then sure I'm a hypochondriac. We've seen the IRS side in favor whatever their deepest convictions are of the meaning of something (whether we agree with them or not (best example was that QNECs couldn't be funded with forfeitures)) with zero regard for what is practical and/or. So I'll feel better when I hear it from them. Now if you'll excuse me I have a hang nail and I believe it requires some stitches so I've just called an ambulance 🤪.

Man, I'm seeing a lot of negativity in this thread. Yes, there is a new law, yes it was rushed through at the last minute, yes it's complicated and yes it's going to change the way we do a lot of things. I get it that there is a lot of anxiety and not a lot of guidance yet. We've all been through changes before and we will all be through them again. Retirement savings is still worth it and our clients need us to be on top of this for their sake, especially now.

Can I presume that if your plan doesn't even allow Roth then those catchups aren't allowed at all, and instead of recharacterization any ADP excess would have to be refunded?

If they executed the election then that means they cannot be in the plan, ever. If they signed it they can't say they should be covered so I think you are ok in that regard. Most of us in the biz don't like irrevocable elections for various reasons, but if it already exists, so be it.

Here's a 20-page chart from Seyfarth Shaw that includes effective dates and whether a plan amendment is required. And a 10-page "Pocket Guide", organized by effective date, from Proskauer.

I am not an attorney, just a lowly TPA, but when I started reviewing the ACT, I thought I would create a spreadsheet that I could sort by the code section, effective date, etc. This was just my first run through and obviously needs to be updated, but please feel free to take it and make it your own. Secure 2.0 Provisions.xlsx

I don't know about you all but I find these discussions much more interesting and enriching compared to the "what compensation do I use to calculate the safe harbor contribution?" questions that make me feel like we're doing someone else's job of basic training their staff.

Here are a couple of articles that might provide starting points: SECURE 2.0 in 2023 and beyond (Eversheds Sutherland) Secure 2.0 Highlights for Retirement Plan Sponsors (Ice Miller) (Caveat: I haven't done any research to determine whether those lists are exhaustive.)

For merged plans, I think it will depend on when the surviving plan of the merger was established. We have had scenarios where a new plan was established, then an existing plan was merged into it, and the surviving plan received a DL on the basis of the plan's original establishment (after the elimination of the regular DL cycles, so only a newly adopted plan would qualify). For two plans that are older, not sure that line of reasoning is feasible.

Taking out the bits about deferrals, I'm reading it as, "an employee may elect ... to have made on the employee's behalf designated Roth contributions in lieu of all or a portion of ... matching contributions or nonelective contributions which may otherwise be made on the employee's behalf" This is correct. That's our Congress for you

Again, the plan document should specify exactly what part of the DC account is used to offset the accrued benefit, but generally it would be the amount attributable to employer non-elective contributions. The amount used for the offset has to be a uniform percentage of pay for all participants if you want to satisfy 401(a)(26) on a pre-offset basis.

No. To qualify for the credit the employer can not have maintained any other qualified plan during the past 3 years. See IRC 45E(c)(2)

I don't see how these plans would be deemed newly established under any scenario.

This is the only reasonable way this provision can work. If left completely to Employer discretion, the Employees will get stuck with the tax liability without having a say. That said, I think you can reasonably read the amended language as simply allowing match and NEC as contributions that may be made as Roth, without the election wording from the first part of the sentence.

This question is vague. What exactly are you asking? The plan document should describe in detail how the normal retirement benefit and accrued benefit are calculated, including any offsets. That said, "offset" can mean (at least) two very different things which I think you may be confusing based on the context here. There is a "floor-offset" which is when the accrued benefit in a DB plan is reduced by the actuarial equivalent of a DC account balance. Then there is an "offset benefit formula" which is one way of integrating the plan's benefit formula with social security. An offset benefit formula would usually be designed to be a safe harbor formula.

You need to look at IRC 402A(b)(1) as amended by S2.0 sec. 604. This is what IRC 402A(b)(1) said pre-S2.0: And as amended: With the amended language it is clear that the Roth employer contributions are made at the employee's election.

I thought this was at the employee's election, if offered as on option by the employer. The employer forcing its contributions as Roth just doesn't seem palatable to me. I haven't plugged in the replacement language to the existing code language (I hate the way they do that), but maybe subsections (b)(1) and/or (2) have that effect (i.e., employee's election).