Leaderboard

Rev. Proc. 2021-30 appendix B 2.02(1)(B) You reduce the QNEC such that the QNEC plus any deferrals actually made do not exceed the 402(g) limit. In essence, the employee would be giving up some "free money" by maxing out.

For NJ, the self employed 401k deductions are deducted on Sch NJ-BUS-1. From the instructions: Make the following adjustments to your federal Schedule C (or C-EZ or F): 5. Deduct your qualified contributions to a self-employed 401(k) Plan. Contributions that exceeded the federal limits are not deductible for New Jersey purposes.

All of the big recordkeepers currently have an option for processing hardship withdrawals for reasons that are in the list of safe harbors. A client has to authorize this service formally and the agreement is structured to be very clear the recordkeeper is acting administratively and only to the extent authorized by the client. The goal for the recordkeeper is to avoid fiduciary responsibility as much as possible. Some have taken the step to become 3(16) administrators but still ask for similar authorizations from the client. Claims of acting as a service provider in an administrative functional role and off-loading fiduciary responsibility seems to have offered some protection to recordkeepers when claims have been pursued. I suspect there is some discomfort for recordkeepers on relying only on a participant certification of the hardship. The participant (almost always) is not a fiduciary and the new provision says the plan administrator can rely on the participant's certification. That seems to give the PA some distance from the hardship, which may be perceived as increasing the recordkeepers' exposure. Maybe the recordkeepers are hoping the IRS will acknowledge the recordkeepers role is administrative and the IRS will say explicitly that the recordkeepers can rely on the participant's certification. This is a lot of speculation on my part, and probably a flight of fantasy about the IRS.

Maybe accelerated plan leakage - loss of assets on the RK platform = lower asset-based fee revenue? Responses might be masked differently, but honestly, how many RKs out there really want to make it as easy as possible to get assets off their platforms? The one legit reason might be cyber-fraud concerns, where potentially any account could be targeted for a withdrawal, not just those of separated or 59 1/2 in-service eligible participants. But if that is an RK's concern, then maybe they aren't doing enough cybersecurity now, so that may be a red flag. These are just my anecdotal thoughts from the recesses of my brain, for what they're worth, not any official position or expression of observed occurrences.

Some plan documents do not contain the proper language regarding how to determine the immediate annuity or what forms of payment are offered, and therefore, if you are amending the plan to offer lump sums upon termination, you will also need to address how to determine the immediate annuity. Many times early retirement factors only go to the earliest retirement age (typically age 55). If you are paying a LS to someone younger than the earliest retirement age, your amendment should also address how that annuity benefit will be determined, and what optional forms of payment will be offered. You at least need to provide the QJSA and QOSA.

Read the document. It will already confirm the YES answer, with the caveat that a LS less than $5000 (or some other lesser amount defined in the document) is not subject to this J&S requirement.

Short answer, distribute as soon as possible. Arguably, they could get hit with a penalty but I have never heard of one being imposed when action was taken to make the disclosure as soon as possible after the deficiency was discovered.

The devil is in the details but you'll need at a minimum- Amendment spinning off wife co ees from the current husband/wife plan and end wife's participation in husband/wife plan which will now solely be husband plan. The spinoff amendment need to preserve certain source characteristics, balances and protected benefits in the new plan. You need a new plan for wife with a separate trust. You need to transfer the wife's assets in the current husband/wife plan to the new wife plan. Then wife can do what she wants with the assets in her plan, assuming the trust documents allow for it.

1. CAN it be legitimate? Yes. IS it legitimate? Facts and circumstances. Really a question for the CPA as to whether the child is a bona fide employee, IMHO. 2. Yes.