Leaderboard

Assuming they are not currently employed or they are 5% owners... Joe turns 72 in 2023 and under SECURE he was not 72 in 2022 and therefore did not have a 2022 RMD. Under SECURE 2.0 Joe does not turn 73 until 2024 and has a 2024 RMD with an RBD of 4/1/2025. The 2nd RMD for 2025 would be due by 12/31/2025. Mary turned 72 in 2022 (70 1/2 in 2021 after SECURE so no 2021 RMD) and under SECURE she had a 2022 RMD with an RBD of 4/1/2023. Under SECURE 2.0 she can not further delay her RMDs because they have begun and has 2nd RMD due for 2023 as of 12/31/2023.

You file the Form 5500 you are required to file. If it is a one-participant plan in 2023, you file an EZ. Will they follow up looking for an SF? Probably, but you are ineligible for the SF in 2023 if its a one-participant plan.

The rule is that it is based on the year in which the employee retires. The IRS has never given a concrete definition of "retires" for this purpose. If you asked the employee when they retired, would they say they retired in 2022 or in 2023? I have a feeling they would say they retired in 2022. Not that this is necessarily determinative, but it is probably indicative of the common understanding of what it means to retire in a given year. If I can hazard a guess, it sounds like RMDs should have started on 4/1/2023 but weren't, and you're trying to find a way to avoid the failure and associated penalties. I'm certainly sympathetic, but I would caution you (and your client) against taking a position that stretches reasonable interpretation. I'd also remind you (and your client) that the penalty for missed RMDs was reduced significantly by SECURE 2.0 and it may help everyone rest easier at night to simply admit to the failure and pay the penalty. Or better yet, file a Form 5329 and request a waiver of the penalty entirely.

If my math and effective dates are correct your first RMD "year" would be - 2019 (or earlier) if born before 7/1/1949 (70/12 rule) 2021 if born 7/1/1949 - 12/31/1949 (72 rule) 2022 if born in 1950 (72 rule) 2024 if born in 1951 (73 rule) 2035 if born in 1960 (75 rule) Also 2020 CARES suspended DC and IRA RMDs, but not DB RMDs. There were no "new*" RMDs for 2020 due to SECURE, 2023 for SECURE 2.0 and 2033-2034 also SECURE 2.0. *and by "new" I mean some one who didn't delay first RMD because they were not a 5% owner and were still employed.

It looks like you are hoping to pass the Ratio Test. Keep in mind that when you are testing a plan for coverage within a controlled group, the numerator is the count of individuals benefiting in the plan, and the denominator is the number of nonexcludable individuals in the controlled group. For A, you have 25 out of 100 HCEs and 100 out of 1350 NHCEs. The ratio is (100/1350) / (25/100) = 7.41% / 25% = 29.63% < 70% = fails. For B, you have 75 out of 100 HCEs and 1250 out of 1250 NHCEs. The ratio is (1250/1350) / (75/100) = 92.59% / 75% = 123.46% > 70% = passes. (Please double check the math). You can test the plan together (permissibly aggregate) the plans and get a ratio of 100% = passes, or try using average benefits testing on A. Also keep in mind, when it comes to coverage testing, Elective Deferrals are a "plan", Match Contributions are a "plan" and Nonelective Employer Contributions are a "plan".

Will he be receiving a 2023 W-2? If not I'd say he terminated/separated/retired whatever you want to call it in 2022 and based on his age would require a first RMD by 4/1/2023 for the 2022 year and by 12/31/2023 for the 2023 year. I think it would be aggressive to say he separated in 2023 but there might be a grey area that allows it. If he will be receiving a 2023 W-2 I think you have a better argument. I agree a with Zeller above. Though you might want to look into to see if you could self correct it by making the 2022 RMD before 12/31/2023 with earnings from 4/1/2023 to distribution along with the 2023 RMD as see if that satisfies the new self correction procedures or not. It would certainly allow for the reduced penalty since steps were taken to timely correct, I'm not sure if eliminates the penalty. IMO it should since the employee is still getting all the taxable income they should in 2023 but I'm not the IRS.

FYI, ASPPA has Benefits Councils around the country and accessible in most metropolitan areas. Some are active and others not so much. If you are near an active ABC, it likely offers local programming and educational opportunities that are in-person (=interactive, better learning experience) and that are less expensive. ASPPA membership is not required to participate in an ABC. It is worth checkout. You can learn more here: https://www.asppa.org/about/abcs

Here is a link to an outstanding article by McDermott, Will & Emery based on a webinar they presented in September. https://www.mwe.com/insights/employer-student-loan-debt-benefits-following-secure-2-0/ It gets into the details about the requirements of QSLPs and identifies several outstanding questions for which we do not yet have answers. The article reinforces my belief that payroll's role is minimal, and that much of the administration should be done by the plan's recordkeeper or a specialty service provider that is contracted to administer QSLPs either by the company or the recordkeeper. It is interesting that there are firms that already are offering full QSLP administration services to companies and recordkeepers. Here are two examples: https://www.meetsummer.com/recordkeepers https://getcandidly.com/student-loan-retirement-match/?gad_source=1 Anyone who does ADP/ACP compliance testing for a plan that allows QSLPs needs to explore the impact the QSLPs will have on their testing procedures and software. One major potential problem is an employee has up until 3 months after the end of the plan year (think by April 1) to send in their student loan information and receive the associated match, but the ADP/ACP testing must be fully completed by March 15 (for calendar year plans) to avoid excise taxes.

For Cycle 3, the IRS required that the plan document explicitly specify the determination period for calculating matching contributions, including safe harbor match. Take a look at item C.18 in the adoption agreement. If the adoption agreement says the determination period is annual, and the employer calculates and deposits the match each pay period, then a true-up will be required. If the adoption agreement says the determination period is per pay period, then a true up would not be allowed unless the plan were amended, and then the rules for mid-year changes to safe harbor plans would come into play. If memory serves me right, FT had a FAQ sheet about this back when Cycle 3 came out. It is probably still on their website somewhere. Or I'm sure they would be happy to send it to you if you contact them, as Bill suggested.

There should be a message on EFAST if an attachment is not displayed because it is under review. It is likely that this is the case since it is difficult to submit a filing without the correct attachments using major provider software. There are so many flags and warnings that it is almost impossible to do by mistake.

There may be other parts of the document that you didn't show that would be relevant. You should contact FTW for guidance.

That is a good idea. You can start a new board on BL. On the Forums (Message Boards) page, click on the Start new topic and name it. PEPs are odd ducklings because the Plan Sponsor is a Pooled Plan Provider versus a business, and companies join the PEP by adopting a participation agreement. The fiduciary responsibilities that in a single employer plan all belong to the business are divided between the PPP and the participating companies. Right now, there are less than 200 PPPs and the number of PEPs is below 350. The industry is in limbo with respect to many topics and the regulating agencies have projected time frames to release of regulations that extends out 2 or more years from now. There are instances where a plan cannot wait, and the path forward is guided by precedence and by principles embodied in existing regulations. Taken together, they provide a foundation for taking good-faith action. When these good-faith actions demonstrably are favorable to participants, they very, very rarely (if ever) are found to be egregious or unacceptable. In this particular thread, the topic distilled down to how to account for a corrective action to give some participants a contribution that should have received but did not. Participants who did receive the contributions they were entitled to get had those contributions put into the plan and then transferred into the PEP. The suggested treatment is to put the participants who did receive their contributions in the same position as those who did.

The correction process in EPCRS 6.02(4)(b) would have the missed amounts deposited as contributions into the plan as Safe Harbor contributions along with missed earnings on those contributions. The contributions would be considered an annual addition for 2022 purposes of applying the 415 limitations for that year. The contributions will be deductible on the employer's 2023 tax return.

FWIW...our document vendor's opinion was that the participant in my example above would have/should have entered the plan on 10/1/2023. Our default election for LTPT eligibility in our SECURE/CARES interim amendments is/was, switching ECPS. That is consistent with how we set up plans for normal eligibility and allows us to better assist sponsors with eligibility tracking. Absent some formal guidance saying no LTPT employees enter before 1/1/2024, we are going to have our off-calendar year clients execute SECURE/CARES interim amendments calling for ECPs based on anniversary years for LTPT purposes for at least the period 2021 - 2023. Given the extended deadline for SECURE/CARES interim amendments, this should be a reasonable solution to address potential 2023 entry dates for LTPT participants in off-calendar year plans.

Does a plan that excludes 100% of its eligible NHCEs have a "processes and procedures" problem which might cost the ability to even USE EPCRS here?

They are Key Employees. They own more than 5% of the employer or they own more than 5% of a participating employer.

You are correct; it's not cross-referenceable. But, even back when we created our own notices, I did not even think about forceouts having to be in the notice. And if FTW doesn't include them, that's enough cover for me. I always thought of (G) (below) as describing when they could get money from the plan. We all have bright, or fuzzy, lines of ridiculousness and this is on the ridiculous side for me. (Not saying you are ridiculous, but if someone from the government tried to make a case about this...) (G) Withdrawal and vesting provisions applicable to contributions under the plan;