Leaderboard

This discussion brings back memories of when the computation periods, hours and service regulations in CFR 2530.200b-1,2 & 3 were first released soon after ERISA was enacted. There was a lot of complaining that the rules are impossible to administer, that companies would not adopt plans or would terminate plans rather than deal with the rules, that the expense of administration would be prohibitive, and more. Somehow we have lived with those rules for almost 50 years now and retirement plans are thriving. Yes, LTPT rules are challenging and recent legislation is not perfect. Let's inform plan sponsors of the rules, provide unbiased alternatives, listen to their feedback, respect their decisions, help guide them through implementation and monitor compliance. Regardless of how sane or insane these rules may seem, retirement plans will continue to thrive.

EZs are not published on EFAST, even when filed electronically.

FWIW this is from Empower and they said not optional. I have to agree with you guys though I read the statutory language and nothing says a plan is not qualified unless it offers this increased limit, or catch-ups in the first place. My plan document for sure has a box to say no catch-ups.

Here is your Amen! @austin3515. And I agree, the vast majority of clients struggle with dual eligibility or less than straightforward entry dates, and will absolutely turn this into a huge mess.

In that case I agree with Belgarath. The law only says you can not discriminate in favor of HCEs; you can discriminate in favor of NHCEs all you like.

I'll give an AMEN to that!

I'm just not sure I will thrive along with them...this foolishness is turning me into a grumpy old man. ☠️

Here’s the whole text of that subparagraph C.B. Zeller mentions: Effective opportunity. An applicable employer plan that offers catch-up contributions and that is otherwise subject to section 401(a)(4) (including a plan that is subject to section 401(a)(4) pursuant to section 403(b)(12)) will not satisfy the requirements of section 401(a)(4) unless all catch-up eligible participants who participate under any applicable employer plan maintained by the employer are provided with an effective opportunity to make the same dollar amount of catch-up contributions. A plan fails to provide an effective opportunity to make catch-up contributions if it has an applicable limit ([for example], an employer-provided limit) that applies to a catch-up eligible participant and does not permit the participant to make elective deferrals in excess of that limit. An applicable employer plan does not fail to satisfy the universal availability requirement of this paragraph (e) solely because an employer-provided limit does not apply to all employees or different limits apply to different groups of employees under paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section. However, a plan may not provide lower employer-provided limits for catch-up eligible participants. 26 C.F.R. § 1.414(v)-1(e)(1)(i) https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-26/chapter-I/subchapter-A/part-1/subject-group-ECFR686e4ad80b3ad70/section-1.414(v)-1#p-1.414(v)-1(e)(1)(i). Further, the Treasury department’s rule was made 20 years ago, and interpreted the statute as it was in 2003. 68 Fed. Reg. 40510-40520 (July 8, 2003) https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2003-07-08/pdf/03-17226.pdf. A taxpayer is unburdened by that rule to the extent the rule is inconsistent with the current statute as it now (or in the future) applies.

I have to disagree. Plans are not required to offer catch-up contributions in the first place, and if they do, there is no requirement that they allow the maximum amount of catch-up contributions. The only requirement under 1.414(v)-1(e)(1)(i) is that all catch-up eligible participants must be allowed to make the same dollar amount of catch-up contributions. This will have to be modified for SECURE 2.0 (since some participants will have a higher dollar limit than others) but the reg does not currently specify anywhere that the dollar amount has to be the maximum amount under the current annual limits - presumably the plan could impose a lower limit if it so chooses.

I was referring to a plan with 3 months elapsed time (for example) and 12 months / 1,000 hours for SH Match. For a plan like that, the LTPT relief you’re talking about is not available. Therefore if a safe harbor match plan with this eligibility does not extend the safe harbor to all eligibles it does not qualify for the top heavy exemption and needs to provide the THM to anyone with a year of service and age 21 - a deal breaker for a SH match plan. So I think although Congress probably intended to allow a SH Match plan to switch to 3 months eligilbity for 401k and a year of service for SH Match and still maintain the exemption (because the new rule has a fraction of the value one might expect), a careful reading with all applicable cross-checks does not get there. I remain hopeful that they will fix this. If their goal is to encourage liberal 401(k) eligiblity this is a huge impediment to that design. Most of my SH Match plans would mke a change like this . Most of them want to do this already but will not because of the top-heavy rules.

One imagines the administrator of a multiemployer pension plan is the plan’s joint board of trustees. If you’re a nondiscretionary service provider, perhaps you want whatever instruction that fiduciary gives you, which might include a stop instruction. Consider that the trustees might instruct that all communications are from or to their counsel, to help preserve (as much as is possible, even recognizing the fiduciary exception) evidence-law privileges for lawyer-client communications made to help the lawyers form their advice or render their advice. If the plan’s administrator acted innocently and prudently in relying on the participant’s false statement, ERISA § 205(c)(6) might afford some relief. “If a plan fiduciary acts in accordance with part 4 of this subtitle [ERISA’s fiduciary-responsibility provisions] in . . . (B) making a determination under paragraph (2) [for example, about whether a consent was excused “because there is no spouse”], then such . . . determination shall be treated as valid for purposes of discharging the plan from liability to the extent of payments made pursuant to such Act [sic].” ERISA § 205(c)(6), 29 U.S.C. § 1055(c)(6) (emphasis added) 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 At least one court construed the “to the extent” phrase to mean that a plan must pay the surviving spouse an amount or amounts based on what remains of the benefit that would have been provided in the absence of the participant’s false election after subtracting the amounts the plan paid. Hearn v. Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust Fund, 68 F.3d 301 (9th Cir. 1995).

Even if one might find and get some records from CWM or a receiver, your client might consider whether it wants CWM’s records. Consider that those records might have little, no, or even adverse value. The linked-to news reporting suggests CWM might have been used for some frauds. How likely is it that your client would discern which of CWM’s records are true and correct, and which are false or incorrect? If it helps any, this hyperlink is to the Securities and Exchange Commission order that bars Mr. Couture from association with any securities-related business. https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/admin/2022/34-96392.pdf With other information, the order shows the District of Massachusetts’ docket number for United States v. James Kenneth Couture—No. 21-cr-10172-NMG (D. Mass.).