Leaderboard

I refer all to ERISA counsel when its ASG or complicated CGs. We don't always require a formal opinion if its fairly simple and a memo is enough.

correct

Many practitioners who don’t pay Bloomberg, CCH/Wolters Kluwer, Lexis, Tax Analysts, Thomson Reuters/Westlaw, or another commercial publisher for a professionally edited and annotated version, use: Bloomberg’s free version https://irc.bloombergtax.com/; or the US Government’s United States Code. http://uscode.house.gov/. In that compilation, I.R.C. § 401 = 26 U.S.C. § 401. The government’s compilation includes SECURE 2022 provisions applicable for 2024, and shows full sets of amendment notes. Bloomberg’s version (even its free version) displays in-context notes to show which provisions apply to 2024, which apply to earlier years, and which not-yet-applicable provisions will apply for later years—2025, 2026, 2027, 2028, 2029, and 2030.

Some suggest that a revision (whether a restated SPD, or a summary of material modifications) need explain only those plan provisions that are “material”. “Material” is awkward legalese for “it matters” (to inform some choice a participant, beneficiary, or alternate payee could make). If a plan is amended to discontinue contributions and get ready for a single-sum final distribution, some provisions included in an otherwise boilerplate plan amendment might never apply.

Observe that Bloomberg displays I.R.C. § 408(p)(11). In context, not as a footnote, Bloomberg introduces the change: Editor’s Note: Sec. 408(p)(11), below, after being added by Pub. L. 117-328, Div. T, Sec. 332(a), is effective for taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 2023. https://irc.bloombergtax.com/public/uscode/doc/irc/section_408

I would suggest he get a formal legal opinion, especially if he is considering any kind of defined benefit plan like a cash balance. Spending the $$ on the legal analysis up front is worth it to protect the huge deductions to a defined benefit plan. I have seen service provides decline to take on clients, or even fire clients when a related employer group (control, affiliated, management etc) comes to light too late, and the sponsor chooses to ignore it. And then I see them spend WAY more $$$$$ to hire an ERISA attorney to clean it all up. Doing the analysis up front would have been MUCH more cost effective. Not to speak of what the expense would be if discovered under audit. Rarely do I see owners take the time and expense to have it done. But sometimes they do and those are the ones I WANT to work with because then I know they value the information they are given. But that's just my opinion, which is probably worth what you paid for it.

SECURE 2.0 additions seem to be in the "amendment notes" at http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title26-section408&num=0&edition=prelim#408_2:

Yea Derrin said something along the lines of "I'm not sure that this was intended, but I don't think its prohibited based on the language". The way it was discussed was more like this is an interesting question and here is my take, rather than this is what you can and cannot do. At least that was my impression. I still think that based on 408(p) and Section 332, the plan cant be effective prior to the SIMPLE plan term.

Looks like the Cornell text has been updated to include SECURE 2.0 -- you can find it (along with other resources) here: https://benefitslink.com/research.html

I recall that as well, though if I recall think Derrin was on the fence, or was wanting more guidance before he decided one way or the other. I'd be curious to know if his thoughts change and he falls into one camp or another.

Is there an election required? It doesn't have to be through payroll withholding, I thought for VAT the person could (if desired) actually just write a check and give to trustee and/or PA saying "here is my VAT contribution for PY XXXX", provided 415 is not exceeded.

Consider asking the IRS’s litigator what appeal bond would be satisfactory to the IRS. Your client might be pleasantly surprised by the answer.

Group: Seeking an expert to assist a US Tax court case on a few narrow issues dealing with S-ESOP prudent investing standards. Please reply privately. Thank you