Leaderboard

Why are those few months really needed? Can’t we all just wait until January 1?

Because clients don't understand things and some advisors won't listen to reason? I agree that's the better solution. My best guess is that they want to get out of the safe harbor nonelective as fast as possible and go to the SIMPLE IRA with match because almost no one defers. It's SECURE 2.0 Section 332. The name of the section is "employers allowed to replace simple retirement accounts with safe harbor 401(k) plans during a year", but not vice-versa.

Perhaps a plan’s governing documents might not preclude an individual from specifying her elective-deferral election with conditions beyond those customary regarding an employee’s wages to refer to one or more business conditions. For example, how about: . . . ? My elective deferral is the greatest amount that: (i) does not exceed the IRC § 402(g) limit (with the applicable IRC § 414(v) extension) and, counting the employer’s nonelective contribution, does not exceed the IRC § 415(c) limit; (ii) does not result in any contribution to the plan that otherwise would be deductible under IRC § 404 being nondeductible for 2024; (iii) is limited such that Supportable Inc. does not breach any debt covenant; (iv) is limited such that Supportable Inc.’s net profit for 2024 is no less than $10,000; and (v) is limited such that, immediately after payment into the plan’s trust, Supportable Inc.’s cash-on-hand is no less than $5,000. Could we defend an election like that as determinable and as decided before the year closed? This is not advice to anyone.

As far as I know, you can't do it. But I'm going from memory - I didn't go back and specifically check.

This is really harsh. What does "A case pending in a coury?" mean. See, we all make mistakes. Totally agree with Mr. Presson - a little grace is always a good idea!

I've been pretty critical of some professionals on here, but I think the "I am a Law Student" would allow for a bit of grace, perhaps? I realize we aren't here to give free advice to outsiders in divorce situations, but no need to answer if you weren't feeling it.

Also depends on what your document says about how to correct the failure. Some give specific instructions and some are silent. You should prefer the document be silent. That way you have all the options available.

So the employee thought they had turned in a deferral election? but didn't? It doesn't sound like a plan error. It sounds like the employer needs to decide if they want to do something to make the employee happy. Perhaps give them a bonus and they can turn in a deferral election now to defer most of the bonus. For morale purposes. But not because the plan needs correction. I don't see how a QNEC would be appropriate since there is nothing on the plan side to fix.

Get a different lawyer.

Valuation is a constant bugaboo, and ESOP valuations are considered to be "special" (e.g. not to be undertaken by a non-ESOP valuation expert), so a discrepancy between/among valuations by different persons for different purposes is neither unusual nor necessarily wrong, but it can be confusing and controversial. You will often find in ESOP valuation engagements a nondisclosure provision -- the ESOP valuation may not be disclosed or used for other than ESOP purposes. You should discuss this with the ESOP valuation professional for free education. Actually, it is not free because the appraiser is being paid and it is good fiduciary practice to get a good understanding of the ESOP valuation. It is the ESOP fiduciary that sets the valuation, based on the professional advice. Questions about the valuation, how it is derived, and what it means (including relative to other valuations) are an indication of good fiduciaries at work.