Leaderboard

We just had a very obnoxious lawyer *(and no, I'm not lumping all lawyers together!) insist that the client had to immediately amend the plan for SECURE 2.0 RMD provisions. We politely told him to go pound sand.

Doesn't change - it's a no-no. Take a look at IRS QAB FY-2006-3, and Treasury Regulation 1.410(a)(3)(e).

Since most DC plans, at least, these days use pre-approved plans, and most that I've noticed incorporate 401(a)(9) by reference, (although they then add in a lot of specifics) I'd assume that they would follow SECURE and SECURE 2.0 ages UNLESS they chose or instructed otherwise.

But not statutorily exclude any who work >1000 hours for a computation period. So if you are wanting to cover hourly employees who are credited with 2080 hours (aka full-time) while excluding employees credited with fewer hours (aka part-time), you would have to find some other legitimate non hours related business classification for which to exclude, assuming you can pass coverage as you say without those >1000<2080 employees. If all such employees worked in the same location, department, etc. exclusive of hourly employees you want/need to cover, that might work, but I would tread lightly as the exclusion of part-time employees who work more than 1000 hours is a specific NO-NO in the eyes of the IRS.

You could exclude all hourly-paid employees, but you can not have a service-based condition with more than 1,000 hours.

I've had to spend hours calculating gains back to 2009 for a 2014 QDRO. It's not fun even when the recordkeeper spits out the participant's full transaction history. The market loss cost the AP $1,000 due to some lousy trading by the participant. It's not a bad idea to let the lawyers know how much of a processing fee it might take to split this stuff perfectly, and perhaps they instead agree to a round number unadjusted and say, close enough.

Thank you - Good advice Lou and Belgarath we'd all like to say that now and then!

There is no requirement to restate but you need to make sure the plan language is up to date and any interim amendments after the last restatement have been timely adopted. If so, and they can adopt a CARES/SECURE amendment and a SECURE 2.0 amendment (which you may need to craft or tack language onto SECURE) and you should be OK. If a CBP with market return ICR, may want to double check document language is up to date/compliant as well.

Also, for DC plans, is there any utility or advantage in retaining earlier commencement requirement and disconnect from the statutory RBD? For DBPs that are still required to provide actuarial increases from 70.5 to commencement at statutory RBD, I can see where the plan sponsor could want to retain a pre-SECURE required commencement date (and we did ask).

They should ask for the amendment or the operational elections that were made, if any, if the Secure 1.0 amendment had not yet been done. And yes the amendment is not due until 12/31/2025.

Important: if there are any transactions (e.g., EE contributions, ER contributions, withdrawals, loans) after the retro date, applying the AP's percentage at some later date (assuming this is an individual account plan) may produce an incorrect split. Read the QDRO order carefully and take this issue into account whenever reviewing a draft QDRO.

While the fee quoted by your consultants may seem steep in relation to the actual excise tax due, consider it relative to the cost of responding to an IRS inquiry if the form is not completed correctly. The fee may be worth your peace of mind.

I agree this doesn't seem right. Is this coming from someone with authority? The DRO will usually refer to the valuation on or closest to the determination date. The valuation date is the valuation date, whether it is daily valuation, annual valuation, or whatever it is. If it is on a RK platform, it is probably daily val right? I don't see how an RK could argue that they can simply ignore gains and losses pursuant to a court order. And if they are saying they can't do it, it is even more problematic.

We don't believe that terminating participation is a distributable event. That would require either a separation of service from the employer (not necessarily the plan sponsor) or a plan termination (unlikely, as the plan sponsor wants to continue the plan.) The solution is a spin-off to the now non-participating employer's plan.