Leaderboard

Paul I and msmith point out the reasons why adding Roth to an IDP formatted VS plan via a short amendment is difficult. While not impossible, I'd say that it would be less expensive to restate the plan than to create an amendment that modifies a large number of sections of the document. As far as the impact on reliance, I wouldn't worry because it would just need to be a good-faith amendment. When the plan is restated for the next cycle you get retroactive protection. But again, much less expense to restate the plan. As to whether an amendment to add Roth is needed now, that is definitely the safe way to go. In the past, the IRS has provided that even discretionary provisions of a law are integrally related to a change in the qualification requirements. I would expect the IRS to do that here - lots of new discretionary options. No telling if that would be broad enough to cover the addition of the underlying Roth provision. But as Paul pointed out on the sequencing, etc., restating the plan to address those issues now might be worthwhile, even if the IRS does provide for broad retroactive amendment relief.

We not longer use the FIS VS - but when we did, I had a conversion with one of their Legal Staff. Best to restate to add Roth, as Roth impact language throughout the document. As with all document providers, there is no amendment yet for SECURE 2.0 - at least, not that I am aware of any. Adding Roth would be a discretionary Amendment. Why not wait until later in 2023 and maybe, we will have SECURE 2.0 language - as a tack on Amendment.

I haven't seen the FIS/Relius IDP VS document. It is surprising that Roth language is not part of the base package. Adding a Roth feature to a plan that does not already have all of the various Roth provisions would be a major effort (e.g., Roth conversions, sequencing of distribution or loan sources, sequencing of test refunds...) I agree with CB Zeller that adding Roth is not a remedial issue since Roth is an optional feature. Note, too, that apart from SECURE 2.0, Roth contributions currently can only begin after the effective date on or after the date of the adoption of the Roth feature for the feature. The answer/path of least resistance for you likely will be to restate now onto a document that has the Roth language.

We will need guidance from the IRS to say for sure, but my take on this is that adding Roth for purposes of complying with S2 sec. 603 isn't a remedial amendment issue, and so wouldn't qualify for the extended deadline. All the law says is that employees whose FICA wages in the prior year were more than a certain dollar amount may not make a catch-up contribution in the current year unless that contribution is Roth. A plan could just as well comply with this requirement by not allowing those employees to make catch-up contributions at all. Of course, due to the universal availability requirement that applies to catch-ups, the employer would have a qualification issue unless they eliminated catch-ups for all participants. But still, adding Roth is not a requirement to comply with the law.

I know this is over 2 years later, but I happened to be looking at the 8950 instructions earlier today, and they have been updated to address these questions for current Anonymous VCP submissions.

I don’t know the tax law about remedial-amendment periods, but many BenefitsLink commenters do. Perhaps they’ll weigh in on my related question: If a plan’s sponsor is adding a provision for Roth deferrals because it’s needed to help meet SECURE 2022’s new tax-qualification condition that § 414(v) deferrals be Roth deferrals, is the provision sufficiently related that it gets a SECURE 2022 remedial-amendment period? If so, does the tax-qualification regime tolerate operate now, amend later? Or does that not work?

In my example, the RK offers the SDBA through a "connected" provider. For example, if you use the [redacted] RK platform, you can establish an SDBA with Schwab (and only Schwab). In these cases, I think technology is more likely to be the issue than privacy concerns.

Whether they "feed off each other" or not is irrelevant for controlled group status. It is purely a question of ownership, and can be determined with mathematical certainty. What business form are these businesses (corporate, partnership - including LLC, or sole proprietorships) and who owns interest (and amount) of each. Feeding off each other *may* bring in the affiliated service group rules (bit those are more complicated).

I agree with Effen in general. However, there might be situations when it is advantageous to pay PBGC from the Trust (overfunding, plan termination, merger, etc.). Too many variables that we do not know about.