Leaderboard

If you got a delinquent filing warning letter after filing the current return in July, because those prior delinquent program-filed returns were not yet processed, your recourse is to provide proof of those filings. You should always keep copies of signed and dated paper filings, mail them certified return receipt requested, and keep all related forms, receipts, etc. together. Filings should always be made using the plan sponsor's (the business) EIN. the plan/trust ID is only used for trust level reporting such as distributions.

Why?

Still seems funny not having Tom remind us of this. Tom, if you are lurking out there, Happy Pi Day.

If the union employees have not met the requirements to be able to take an in-service distribution, the employer can work with the union to coordinate a trust-to-trust transfer of accounts from the employer plan to the union plan. Part of that coordination may involve amending one or both plans to have provisions facilitating this approach. The union can decide what provisions in the union plan will be applicable to the balances received into the union plan. The key point is making this happen is between the employer and the union, and is not directly between the employer and the union employees.

You are correct that for purposes of testing, the employer can elect either to include LTPTs in all applicable testing or to exclude LTPTs in all applicable testing. The examples 1(A) and 1(B) in section f(3)(i) illustrate how this election is applicable non-elective employer contributions. They could have provided the same examples applicable to match as well. The rule remains "all or nothing" for all of the testing listed in section f(1).

I have come to the conclusion that the 403(b) would report the distribution using Form 1099R (code G in box 7) with the NRA's ITIN and call it a done deal.

One of the requirements for being a new qualified employer plan includes a 3-year look-back - including predecessor employers - that had a plan that covered substantially the same group of employees. Note that EINs in particular are not a factor. See Sec. 45E Small employer pension plan startup costs, subsection (c)(2): "(2) Requirement for new qualified employer plans. Such term shall not include an employer if, during the 3-taxable year period immediately preceding the 1st taxable year for which the credit under this section is otherwise allowable for a qualified employer plan of the employer, the employer or any member of any controlled group including the employer (or any predecessor of either) established or maintained a qualified employer plan with respect to which contributions were made, or benefits were accrued, for substantially the same employees as are in the qualified employer plan." I suggest that you let the CPA know that you are not providing advice, and the CPA should decide what is appropriate when preparing their client's tax return.

Agreed, and believe it's a one-way street. (And don't say but you're only going one way!)

How expense accounts are funded, how and what expenses are paid, whether excess amounts are allocated to participants, are expense accounts plan assets, and even more topics are all factors to be considered. I find the Plan Sponsor Best Practices page in the Oppenheimer guide (attached, see page 9) to provided an excellent framework for a plan fiduciary to use when considering implementing or reviewing the operation of an expense account. The Multnomah white paper on defining expense accounts - while aged - also comments on how an expense account may or may not be a plan asset. We do not have bright-line official guidance on expense accounts likely because of the many ways in which fees are paid to service providers (such as basis point loads, sub-TA fees, revenue sharing, direct payments, management fees, administration subsidies...). We not have bright-line official guidance on how determining what are excessive fees (which has generated a whole class of ERISA litigation aimed at making that determination on a case-by-case basis). We do see the agencies voice concerns about fees, and this has led to enhanced disclosure requirements like 404(a)(5) and 408(b)(2). These disclosure requirements were put in place with the intent of providing participants and plan fiduciaries with more information about fees so they can make their own determinations. There also was the attempt to force disclosure of fees paid to service providers on Schedule C. For now, I think it is best to leave it up to the plan fiduciaries in consultation with ERISA legal counsel to determine if an expense account is a plan asset and if the account is operating properly. I also think it is appropriate for a TPA "if they see something, then say something" but not to attempt to make the determination. Oppenheimer-A-Guide-to-Retirement-ERISA-Accounts.pdf Multnomah Group White-Paper-Defining-Expense-Accounts.pdf

We're currently on hold with our client and a platform that I'll call This Retirement Platform. The plan has a terminated participant who has a less than $5,000 vested balance. It's an ERISA plan (there are ER contributions). It has taken us several DAYS to get someone to accept that this is legal. I wish I was kidding. Currently, TRP (by which I mean This Retirement Platform, of course, not naming names) is telling us that such an transaction (a) has to be medallion guaranteed due to "some 2020 law", and (b) must have 20% withheld because it's leaving the 403b plan - yes, even if we're sending it to a rollover IRA. They can't cite the actual authority for either of these positions oddly enough. Has anyone dealt with a retirement platform that has tried these tactics before? Any success pathways (other than "no, give me your manager") or tips to share? Thank you for allowing me to spill the Tea; it's a hard Row here, but I guess the Price was good at some point. Thanks.

1. I would think that if you are concurrently sending in 3 late returns that the first chronologically would be the first return and so the next two would leave box A blank. You could not have multiple "first" returns so I think this is the only way that makes sense. Also, I would interpret as the first plan year for which a filing is required. I do not have any direct experience with this specific issue but that is how I would handle. 2. I would still do that for added clarity, it doesn't hurt. 3. Sorry, I'm having a hard time not laughing at the presumption that if these filings are done now that they would all be processed and cleared/closed come July and the current filing due date. That may happen, so waiting might avoid having to deal with a notice. That makes sense and you haven't lost anything if you still get a notice because those prior returns are sitting on some IRS agent's desk.

He can not defer more than 100% of compensation, you can't defer what you didn't make but an employer allocation can bring him over 100% but it being a sole prop... With such low comp the math gets circular if you are trying to do the absolute max. You'll need to do a PS contribution first which can't exceed the 25% deduction limit so using your $26,900 figure you get a $5,380 PS contribution which reduces his pay to $21,520 of which he can deffer 100% and the last $5,380 would be catch up. For a total of $26,630. Or he could do no PS and contribute the full $26,900 as deferral. It doesn't matter if the deferral is traditional, ROTH or a mix.

What does your loan program say? You can suspend for up to 12 months for approved leave of absence if loan program allows. You can take payments outside of payroll if loan program allows. You can reamortize when they return, see §72(p) for acceptable reamortization methods. You can take a payment for the missed payment when they return. Note the loan continues to accrue interest in while thy are on leave and payments are suspended. I've done #1 in the past of several plans when the participant returns from leave.