Leaderboard

Ask your employer for a copy of the Summary Plan Description. That is a document that should have the plan provisions in easier to understand language.

For what it is worth I am with the others. I don't understand the desire to fight the bank. They are treating their customer awfully. Why does your client want to reward such bad behavior by still doing business with such a bank?

How/why are you making a contribution after the final distribution is completed for the plan? Doesn’t that make the final distribution NOT the final distribution?

Don’t assume; read the pooled employer plan’s participation agreement and all documents that affect relations and allocations of responsibilities between the PEP’s administrator and the participating employer. One might be surprised by how many responsibilities a PEP’s documents can allocate to a participating employer.

I look at this one step at a time. When uncle dies, plan assets go either per a beneficiary designation *or* if none, per the terms of the plan. I would guess that the spouse (aunt) is the bene under the terms of the plan - so those assets go to her - whether she exercise control over them or not. Uncles will is irrelevant. Only a valid beneficiary designation or the terms of the plan govern. So, when aunt died, assets go per her bene designation (if any) or per the terms of the plan - and uncle, uncle's estate, and uncles trust have no bearing on aunt's distribution of her interest in the plan. Aunt's representative (estate) or others would be entitled to those benefits - absent some fact not disclosed. The court has NO JURISDICTION over the plan assets until paid, and cannot direct those assets to be paid to the trust, and whether it is a pass-through is really irrelevant..

Hi Bill Good to hear from you. Thank you for your input. Agree that dad's partnership ownership never exceeds 50%.

Controlled group attribution falls under Section 1563. For that an adult child’s interest is attributed to the parent only if the parent owns MORE than 50%. Same issue in reverse. So they need to be careful that the dad never add any ownership.

@Bill Presson is correct. How can a plan make a "final distribution" if the money has not yet been deposited into the trust?

You will be shocked to find that the doc is not happy that be might be part of an ASG. "I read up on it this weekend" - great; I've been reading about it for 30 years and it's still really complicated. "I'll open a SIMPLE IRA instead and forget this!" Buzz! Sorry, also subject to ASG rules. I don't think I'm getting this business.

Don’t try to fight the bank, just move the money. It’s not worth the risk.

Generally, not for profit entities refer to a retirement plan that is exclusively employer funded as a 401(a) plan. The employee funded plan is 401(k) or 403(b). With that said, an employer funded plan under 401(a) may have a one year wait for eligibility (pretty typical) but employee enrollment isn’t required. About the only thing a participant needs to do is complete a beneficiary form. But not doing that doesn’t keep one out of the plan. Whole thing seems a bit off kilter to me.

I think the misunderstanding that many people have is that if the participant did not fill out a beneficiary form/designation, then the account is subject to the terms of a will, or if no will, then intestate rules. It isn't. 401(k) plans have default beneficiaries written into the governing plan documents, so that in the event a participant passes without a affirmative beneficiary designation, there is a default beneficiary. Typically that is something like spouse, children, estate, but it varies. Read the plan's document carefully. Even if the estate is where the benefits are to go - they go there because of the beneficiary rules in the plan document, not because of the application of a will or intestate laws. So If everyone else pre-deceases the participant (not what we have in this post) the estate is the named default beneficiary under the terms of the plan, and gets the $$ because of that.

Is this a DB plan, or other plan subject to QJSA? If so, does the plan exempt distributions between $1,000-$7,000 from the QJSA requirements? If it does, then I agree with the other commenters that you can go ahead and distribute the single sum upon plan termination. If it does not, then you have to make the distribution in a form that preserves the QJSA rights. This probably means buying an annuity contract, or transferring the benefits to the PBGC's missing participants program. Optional forms of benefit with respect to distributions less than $7,000 are not a protected benefit under 411(d)(6), so the annuity options could be eliminated without disqualifying the plan. Once the annuity option is eliminated, you could distribute the single sum. However, if the plan is covered by the PBGC, you may not amend the plan to eliminate a form of benefit after termination, regardless of whether it would be ok under 411(d)(6).

DSG, it’s unclear whether the other spouse’s lawyer is ignorant or trying a negotiation ploy. Either way, you won’t fall for it. Consider drawing on your deep experience with the different law that governs the Federal Civil Service Retirement System and the Federal Employees Retirement System and their regimes for a court order acceptable for processing (COAP). 5 U.S.C. §§ 8339(j)(4), 8419; 5 C.F.R. §§ 831.601 to 831.685, 838.101 to 838.1121. An attempt to specify a former spouse’s shares by reference to a factor other than a percentage of the employee annuity would get rejected as not a COAP. And even if one were to imagine that the former spouse’s COAP-paid benefit might be the employee’s income, an attempt now to negotiate the former spouse’s fixed percentage of the employee annuity by using assumptions about the employee’s marginal income tax rates for Federal, State, and local income taxes is nonsense because not only might incomes changes but also any of the tax rates might change. What might Maryland’s income tax rates be in 2034, 2044, or 2054? What if the former employee retires to Texas? What if the US decreases Federal income tax rates?

How about you inform the attorney for the participant that a proposed order with that calculation would fail to qualify under IRC section 414(p)(3)(A). If the attorney can figure out how to express the desired results, mathematically within the plans procedures for calculating and distributions, then the plan will comply with simple steps and functions. The client, the plan cannot be called upon to figure out and implement the after tax results that are desired, at least as you have described.

I think manually checking the box on the hand-signed copy of the form that gets attached to the e-filing is fine. What I think is a problem is you modifying a document after it has been signed by the plan administrator. Either have the plan administrator check it themselves before they sign it, or send them a new copy with the box already checked. No problem. I probably wouldn't but ultimately I don't think it will make a difference.

There should be no SS or Medicare taxes on DB pension annuity, nor insurance. As you note, tax withholdings are just that and can be manipulated. The cost of the survivor annuity (the difference between the straight life annuity and joint & survivor option) is determinable as of the commencement date. I have not seen that done but I don't think that means it can't be done.

If I'm understanding the original question correctly, I believe CDA TPA intends to file a 5558 and mark the 5558 box in the software, but the client has already been provided with a copy of the 5500-SF for manual signature without that box checked. CDA TPA is asking if they can check the 5558 box on the paper copy of the 5500-SF after they receive it back, signed by the plan administrator, before scanning it and attaching the scanned copy to the electronic filing. I would not advise you to modify a document after it has been signed by the plan administrator in any way. However I would have no problem if the plan administrator manually checked the 5558 box before signing the 5500-SF. As long as all of the data elements on the manually-signed 5500-SF match the electronically-filed 5500-SF then, in my opinion, it is a valid and complete filing. I don't see how it matters whether the "X" in the box on the paper copy was placed there by your 5500 software, or a PDF editor, or a pen in the plan administrator's hand. It might be easier to send them an updated copy with the box checked, and say "If you don't get form back to us by X date, we will put you on extension and you must sign this attached form instead of the earlier one."

What Paul I says. And, if the plan or its administrator is or was advised by a lawyer, consider that the independent qualified public accountant might want, in addition to the administrator’s management-representations letter, the lawyer’s letter to confirm that she has not “given substantive attention” to the plan’s contingent liability (or contingent gain) beyond those management disclosed.

You include both catch-ups. They could have drafted the language better, but the reason is that 414(v) is referenced in 402(g) but it is not referenced in 408(p). That's why they mention it for the simple.

The short answer is do not try to manually check the 5558 box on Form 5500-SF and expect it to be acknowledged and accepted. The Form has to be submitted electronically on EFAST2. Software vendors build their 5500 programs that create information files in a specific format that is input into the EFAST2 system. While an image copy of the filing may be attached and submitted concurrently with the electronic filing, EFAST2 will only look at the data in the information file it receives and that will show that no 5558 was filed. That likely will trigger a late filing notice and you will spend many, many more hours trying to convince the DOL and IRS that the extension was filed timely while also trying to calm down the client who sees the amount of potential penalties. There are 3 weeks left before the due date. Inform the client of the need to file timely and of the penalties for late filings. Also let them know that signing the form takes very little time on their part. Otherwise, after the you file for the extension and the deadline passes, you will need to send them a new form to sign which basically restarts the signing process. We all have stories about clients who procrastinate. We have a client that kept putting of signing the form so we put them on extension. At 6:30pm on October 15, we tracked them down having dinner at a resort in the Dominican Republic and had them sign the form electronically using their mobile phone. They never were late again. A little bit of education and some persistence pays off in terms of time spent by both you and your client. Hopefully, your client appreciates your work.

The instructions to the Form 5500 include this note: Note. An amended filing must be submitted as a complete replacement of the previously submitted filing. You will need to resubmit the entire form, with all required schedules and attachments, through EFAST2. You cannot submit just the parts of the filing that are being amended. The reason EFAST2 takes this approach is when a form is amended, the existing filing is removed from the system and the amended is added into the system. In the described situation, an amended filing will need to include the audit report for the year being amended. It seems that the auditors need to answer the question whether anything changes in the audit report, if any new audit steps need to be taken in this situation, and if nothing changes in the audit report, that the auditor stands by the original audit report as valid. My bet is the audit report will need to be reissued. Hopefully the audit firm will rely on its previous and only charge a fee for work impacted by the change to a MEP filing.

§401(a)(9) sends you §416 which sends you to §318 for attribution which is used for RMDs. For purposes of the RMD rules he owns the stock of his children, just like HCE determination. It is different for Controlled Groups but be happy the RMDs were properly done and you don't have to go back for missed RMDs under VCP.

Before turning to questions about how to report on a multiple-employer plan, the plan’s administrator might want its lawyer’s confidential advice about whether the plan’s participating charitable organizations are more than one employer or might be one employer for one or more relevant purposes. For charities, no one owns shares of stock, other capital interests, or profits interests. Instead, the Treasury department’s interpretation of Internal Revenue Code § 414(c) looks to powers to elect, appoint, or remove a charity’s director, trustee, or member, including powers to do so indirectly, as a way to look for common control. 26 C.F.R. § 1.414(c)-5(b). Further, “exempt organizations that maintain a plan . . . that covers one or more employees from each organization may treat themselves as under common control for purposes of section 414(c) (and, thus, as a single employer for all purposes for which section 414(c) applies) if each of the organizations regularly coordinates their day-to-day exempt activities.” 26 C.F.R. § 1.414(c)-5(c)(1) https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-26/part-1/section-1.414(c)-5#p-1.414(c)-5(c)(1). While the law about what is or isn’t one employer varies with each of several ERISA title I, Internal Revenue Code, and securities laws’ purposes, the Treasury department’s rule to interpret and implement Internal Revenue Code might be a useful support. That the retirement plan’s administrator assumed for several years that the distinct charitable organizations comprise one employer perhaps suggests some practical grounds under which they might have been, and might be, one employer. This is not advice to anyone.

IRC 402(e)(1)(A)