Leaderboard

Statutorily, the 417(e) factors exist to be a minimum lump sum amount. Many plans adopt them as the sole basis for lump sum determinations, but plans can use other actuarial equivalents if they wish. Therefore, lump sums can be greater than those determined using 417(e) factors, but not less, except in the case of maximum benefits under Section 415. Since you mentioned "window", if the plan has no stated actuarial equivalence for determining lump sums (because they never offered them), and they want to add a lump sum window, they do have some flexibility in choosing the Applicable Interest Rate within the 417(e) regulations. The existing actuarial equivalence factors do not need to be used to determine lump sums unless the plan specifically states they apply for that purpose.

This may help: Page 441 of General Explanation of Tax Legislation Enacted in the 117th Congress (December 2023) 17. Retroactive first year elective deferrals for sole proprietors (sec. 317 of the Act and sec. 401(b) of the Code) Present Law Present law provides a remedial amendment period during which, under certain circumstances, a retirement plan may be amended retroactively in order to comply with the tax qualification requirements.2030 Plan amendments to reflect changes in the law generally must be made by the time prescribed by law for filing the income tax return of the employer for the employer’s taxable year in which the change in law occurs (including extensions). The Secretary may extend the time by which plan amendments need to be made. Section 201 of the SECURE Act 2031 provides that if an employer adopts a qualified retirement plan after the close of a taxable year but before the time prescribed by law for filing the return of tax of the employer for the taxable year (including extensions thereof), the employer may elect to treat the plan as having been adopted as of the last day of the taxable year. That provision permits employers to establish and fund a qualified plan by the due date for filing the employer’s return for the preceding plan year. However, that provision does not override rules requiring certain plan provisions to be in effect during a plan year, such as the provision for elective deferrals under a qualified cash or deferral arrangement (generally referred to as a ‘‘section 401(k) plan’’). Under present law, if a section 401(k) plan is established by a sole proprietor after the end of the individual’s taxable year, then the plan can be funded with employer contributions as of the due date for the business’s return (including extensions), However, any election to make an elective deferral must be made by the end of the individual’s taxable year (i.e., generally by December 31 of the prior year). In contrast, an individual who contributes to an IRA is deemed to have made a contribution to the IRA for a taxable year if it is contributed after the taxable year has ended but is made ‘‘on account of’’ that year and before the due date for filing the IRA owner’s tax return for that year without extensions (generally, April 15). Explanation of Provision Under the provision, in the case of an individual who owns the entire interest in an unincorporated trade or business, and who is the only employee of such trade or business, any elective deferral 2034 under a section 401(k) plan to which the election under section 201 of the SECURE Act applies which is made by such individual is treated as having been made before the end of the plan’s first plan year if the election to make the elective deferral is made before the time for filing the return of such individual (determined without regard to any extensions) for the taxable year ending after or with the end of the plan’s first plan year. This extension of time would only apply to the first plan year the section 401(k) plan is established. Effective Date The provision is effective for plan years beginning after the date of enactment (December 29, 2022).

kcarter430, as you may have surmised from Lou S.'s comments, the information used by the SSA is collected and maintained by processes that are not very controlled. If you know or think you have a benefit due, the place to start is with your own records. Some facts or documents you should gather include: Termination date from the company with the plan in which you participated (to set your time frame). Any participant statement reporting to you your account balance or accrued benefits in that plan before or after your termination date. If the amounts are significant to you or you are just curious, then you may decide to keep going. Otherwise, there is a high probability that the cost to you in time and effort is not worth pursuing this further. Next: Review any bank statements you may have for a few years starting from your termination date and going forward, looking for deposits that you do not recognize. Review any tax returns you may have for a few years starting from your termination day and going forward, looking for amounts reported on a Form 1099R or on the pension income line on the tax return. If you find deposits or reported pension income, then very likely you were paid and can put the issue to rest. Moving forward, here are some avenues to pursue: Look up the final Form 5500 filing for your plan here https://www.efast.dol.gov/5500search/ You should be able to find the filing for 2010 or possibly 2011. If the plan was subject to a plan audit, the audit report will be included in the download. The audit report may reveal information about the plan termination including if the account balances were rolled into the acquiring company or sent to an IRA provider. Make contact with these organizations and explain what you have done that led you to them. (They may or may not make an attempt to help.) Contact the National Registry of Unclaimed Retirement Benefits at https://unclaimedretirementbenefits.com/ - they exist to help people find money and it's free. Contact the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation at https://www.pbgc.gov/wr/find-unclaimed-retirement-benefits - they will search their records of terminated plans that sent them unclaimed benefits. They also have tips for people finding unclaimed benefits. Contact the Administration for Community Living at https://acl.gov/programs/retirement-planning-support/pension-counseling-and-information-program - this is a government funded group with a mission "AoA’s Pension Counseling and Information Program promotes the financial security of older individuals and enhances their independence by empowering them to make wise decisions with respect to pensions and savings plans. The program assists older Americans in accessing information about their retirement benefits and helps them to negotiate with former employers or pension plans for due compensation." May you have good luck and good fortune!

You said it is W-2 comp which implies this is a corporation. I'm going to assume S-corp, since that's more common for small businesses. I'm also assuming you (and your client) are aware of the issues with reasonable compensation for S-corp shareholder employees. If there was no passthrough income from the corp to the shareholder in those years then it's probably not an issue. Just to clarify, what was his comp for 2023? You wrote $300,000 in the first paragraph but used $330,000 for your calculation. I'll assume that $330,000 is correct and that $300,000 was a typo. Under the circumstances, I would have no problem including the pre-2023 years of service for 415. However I would include them for 415 comp as well. The comp limit is the high 3-year average comp prorated for less than 10 years of service. So his comp limit at 12/31/2023 is (0 + 0 + 330,000) / 36 months = 9,167 * .5 = 4,583.

Ticker symbol? Could it be "money market"?

Again/still, I'm not sure what that means, although I'm pretty sure it means that 1/29 is when everything gets set in stone. As I see it, you have 3 options: Say that nothing can be withheld from the 1/31 check because it is after the term date. I don't think that is what anyone wants. Fix it right as Bill suggests; just change the friggin' term date to what it should have been and move on. Ignore the documentation and let the money be withheld anyway and hope you can talk your way out of it, if necessary. #2 is the way to go, because it is simple and easy. If it were hard, then, well, I imagine I'll get the side eye from some, but #3 is not such a big deal for me, as long as no one is being hurt. If it came up, it would be years later, and uncorrectable, and no one would care. But seriously, find out what the goal is and then make the docs fit that.

Here are two IRS publications that discuss fringe benefits and neither mentions employer compensation for jury duty: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p15b.pdf https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p5137.pdf The publications discuss fringe benefits that are not included in income and say everything else is not excluded. From the perspective of the plan, amounts paid for jury duty by someone other than the employer are not employer compensation and are not considered by the plan. Interestingly, many plans talk about jury duty in the definition of Hours of Service. For example: "Hour of Service" means (a) each hour for which an Employee is directly or indirectly compensated or entitled to compensation by the Employer for the performance of duties during the applicable computation period (these hours will be credited to the Employee for the computation period in which the duties are performed); (b) each hour for which an Employee is directly or indirectly compensated or entitled to compensation by the Employer (irrespective of whether the employment relationship has terminated) for reasons other than performance of duties (such as vacation, holidays, sickness, incapacity (including disability), jury duty, lay-off, military duty or leave of absence) during the applicable computation period (these hours will be calculated and credited pursuant to Department of Labor regulation §2530.200b-2" While the above is not clearly dispositive, if the employer pays the employee for time the employee is on jury duty, it is not a fringe benefit.

I think the 1/29 date is the date the payroll is being run. If accurate, that date doesn't matter. The ones that matter are 1/30 (termination date) and 1/31 (check date). If the plan terminates on 1/30 and no further contributions are allowed, then the 1/31 check date is outside that parameter and no deductions should be processed. Time to fix the dates. Might mean they need to move the payroll check date to 1/30.

Congrats Andy. Thanks for all the sharing of info. And putting up with my very dry humor over the years I only look in once and a rare while but at least I was inspired to look in at a good time. God bless on your retirement.

So it's a plan design decision. It's allowed, just has to be written in the document. I will check the document. As a default I'm sure that is how I have it. Thanks

Read the document. It will say if they can or can't. We (almost) always code plans to allow that.

It should be feasible to control this with the plan sponsor’s careful writing of the plan’s governing documents and the plan administrator’s careful writing of communications to participants. If the plan sponsor prefers that implied-assent elections in effect just before an amendment’s effectiveness remain in effect (despite the amendment providing no more implied-assent elections), it should be feasible for the documents and communications to specify that. An implied-assent regime presumes, if there is no opt-out, the communicated-to person’s assent to the provisions communicated to her. The rule for a cash-or-deferred election states: “For purposes of determining whether an election is a cash or deferred election, it is irrelevant whether the default that applies in the absence of an affirmative election is [that] the employee receives an amount in cash or some other taxable benefit[] or [that] the employer contributes an amount to a trust or provides an accrual or other benefit under a plan deferring the receipt of compensation[].” 26 C.F.R. § 1.401(k)-1(a)(3)(ii) https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-26/part-1/section-1.401(k)-1#p-1.401(k)-1(a)(3)(ii). If the plan’s governing document is unclear about which election—implied-assent deferral or no-longer-implied-assent, and so “cash”—applies, the administrator might use whatever discretionary authority the plan’s governing document grants to the administrator for it to interpret (loyally and prudently) which election the plan provides. This is not accounting, tax, or legal advice to anyone.

Yes, advice from QDROphile is good (as usual). Other points: Since there is a new "administrator", there might be new QDRO procedures. Ask. The name/identity of the "new plan administrator" is (likely) irrelevant to what goes in any QDRO. You might need a new address, but it should not impact the content of the DRO and/or QDRO.

You should not have to do anything new with a domestic relations order that has been submitted. The plan is required to process it. However, the new "processor" might derail what was on track for qualification and decide it is not qualified. Then you have to resubmit within whatever new legitimate administrative policies and limitations apply under the new processor. Or you can challenge. The decision might rest, unfairly, on the style and arrogance of the processor. We could talk about how a lot of the processors, like Fidelity, suck to the point that the plan may not comply with the law. And we could speculate about whether or not your DRO can be whipsawed by changes at this point. But the plan usually holds the better cards unless you have either lots of resources or a a very confident aggressive competent lawyer who is willing to work for an attorney's fee award. If you have submitted a DRO, just wait for the plan to make its move based on the determination of qualification that it is required to perform, and then decide what to do. You will have to be given a written explanation, which you can challenge, or you can choose to conform. Don't listen to informal buzz outside of the actual terms of the formal determination, the Summary Plan Description, and and written QDRO procedures. If you are somewhere else in the process, such as having informally submitted a draft DRO for "pre-qualification" (it pains me to use that phrase) then you might get jerked around more. The plan still has to follow the written QDRO procedures. You are entitled to them. Check them against what you are being told. By the way, the plan's written QDRO procedures probably also suck. Sorry. This is not an area where third-party providers (the big ones, anyway) are very enlightened. This is also an opportunity to gratuitously knock the Department of Labor. It just can't get QDRO stuff right. But at least its bias tends to be against the plan because it gets asked for help mostly from would-be alternate payees, and plans -- especially union plans -- can be obtuse), so for you it might be considered an ally. You probably don't have a fight yet, and chances are the DOL is not itching to get in one with you.

Yes, to all the above advice. It might be prudent to do a little due diligence (and documentation) to make sure the plan was formally (and correctly) terminated. It cannot be both a merger and a termination. If the latter, then you know to step aside.