Leaderboard

You are right. Even more broadly than your reading of ERISA sections 101 and 105, nothing in part 1 or any part of subtitle B of title I of ERISA governs a plan if the plan is not ERISA-governed because the plan is not an employee-benefit plan within the meaning of ERISA § 3. A nonapplication of ERISA’s title I does not, at least not by itself, preclude a plan’s administrator from generating an illustration; but that’s a choice, rather than a response to ERISA § 105’s command.

Unfortunately you're going to need to delay this transition until next year. The health FSA limit is capped at a prorated amount for a short plan year. You'll need to tell employees that prorated amount in advance of the short plan year and have them capped at that prorated limit when electing at OE for the short plan year. At this point presumably you have elections (and reimbursements) in excess of what would have been the prorated limit for a short plan year running from April - December ($2,387. 50). So you'll need to make the transition with a short plan year from April - December 2024 that is communicated in advance and capped at the prorated limit (likely $2,400). Then you can start with for a calendar plan year in 2025. Here's an overview of these considerations: https://www.newfront.com/blog/short-plan-year-considerations

Right. Any citation would be a complicated and convoluted review of controlled group rules. One has to wonder what would make the buyer opine on this anyway.

If it was an asset sale and the seller retained the plan, why is the buyer involved at all? For purposes of the Plan it sure sounds like you have two unrelated employers which is probably part of the reason it was an asset sale in the first place. The employees were terminated by seller and rehired by buyer. Whether buyer grants service with seller to the employees or not is up to them and the terms of buyer plan, but what seller does with Seller Plan should not be a concern of the buyer. At least as far as I understand asset sales but maybe I'm missing something.

Agree with you 100%. The lifetime income illustration is a Title I requirement. Unless the CPA believes the plan is subject to Title I - in which case, bonding, disclosures, etc. all apply - then there is no requirement to provide the lifetime income illustration. That said, there is nothing saying you can't provide one, and if the CPA really wants to see it, I'm sure you'd be happy to prepare one for him, for a modest fee....

Earlier this year, I had the same situation and deposited the Profit Sharing after the Asset Sale date. Buyer did not object.

It would be helpful to get more details about the plan and which new Secure 2.0 rules that may be applicable. If this is a brand new plan, the 401(k) feature must be in place for at least 3 months during the plan year. Since you are talking about a calendar year plan, the 401(k) feature needs to be implemented before October 1st (which is this Sunday) with deferrals started on the first payroll in October. If you mean "effective date" when referring to "start date", it is common to use 1/1 so compensation for the entire calendar year can be used for calculating employer contributions and for compliance testing. The compensation limit is pro-rated for a short plan year, and the 415 limit is pro-rated for a short plan year. These are just a couple of examples and there are additional potential issues to consider depending on the details of the plan design.

Whenever we use the term "deemed", we are referring to a legal fiction - we are calling something a thing because the law says we can. A deemed distribution is just such a fiction. A deemed distribution is just a taxable event, but it does not end the loan, which continues to exist on the plan's books and continues to accrue interest, impact vesting, outstanding loan balances, etc. That would prevent a participant from taking a second loan until the first loan is paid off (assuming the plan limits participants to no more than one loan at time). As Bird notes above, a loan offset distribution terminates the loan. Once the loan offset occurs, the participant does not have an outstanding participant loan and should be able to take a new loan pursuant to the plan's terms. The framework for this is found in Treas. Reg. §1.72(p)-1, Q&A 13(a)(2), which provides:

Hi Someone I work with told me that line 19 - discounted contributions - attachment is not required unless the plan is subject to quarterly payments i.e. if less than 100% funded in the prior year. I reread the instructions on SB and seems to be supporting this. I always attach to avoid any misses. Any comments are appreciated.

correct, the attachment is required only if there are late quarterlies. Even if there were quarterlies but made timely , no attachment is required. I believe this was changed around PPA (the full schedule used to be always required).

Getting pushback from an advisor (CPA) on this, and while I'm always ready to consider that I'm wrong, I don't THINK I am on this. For a 1-person plan (sole prop, corp, whatever) the CPA is saying the lifetime income illustration is required. I say otherwise. SECURE amended ERISA 105(a) to add this requirement. ERISA 105(a)(1)(A) exempts the pension benefit statement requirement for one participant plans described in ERISA 101(i)(8)(B). The lifetime income disclosure under 105(a)(2)(B)(III)(iii) falls under 105(a)(2)(B) in general, which refers to statements required under clause (i) or (ii) of paragraph (1)(A) which as stated above, exempts the one-participant plans. Am, I missing anything?

Thanks. In this case, modesty is inappropriate, so a FULL fee would seem indicated!

With Appreciation, "trust agreement" normally means the legal document between the employer(s) and trustee(s) creating trust. The distribution and other disbursement ledger is usually called a "trust report." Just sayin'.

austin3515, the procedures have not changed. What you described worked for my client a couple of years ago.

Even if her investigation has a focus about one employer, the Secretary of Labor has broad powers to examine almost anything about an ERISA-governed employee-benefit plan. With further powers, the Secretary may “require the submission of reports, books, and records, and the filing of data in support of any information required to be filed with the Secretary under [ERISA].” For example, the Labor department may require production of every record behind any entry in the whole pooled-employer plan’s Form 5500 report. ERISA § 504(a)(1), 29 U.S.C. § 1134(a)(1) http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title29-section1134&num=0&edition=prelim. And that power applies even if the Labor department has no reason to suspect even a potential ERISA violation. Compare § 504(a)(1) with § 504(a)(2).

Griswold, are you asking whether they should amend their prior unnecessary filings by filing multiple 5500's for each year for each separate benefit because they didn't have a wrap plan? If that's what you're asking I'd want to thoroughly examine the facts to be sure that they really didn't have to file, but if they didn't have to file there's no need to amend prior unnecessary filings.