Leaderboard

Nothing smelly, though. The plan will retroactively be amended so that currently your guy can get the 6K upon his termination of employment without the need for either the annuity options or spousal consent.

You don't want free advice. Someone needs an ERISA attorney that is good with ESOPs. I am serious here. I have been working on ESOPs since the mid 90s and I wouldn't dare advice the client how to clean this up.

Lou is correct - and to clarify the amendment must be adopted by 12/31/2026 (extended from 12/31/2025) or the plan's termination if earlier.

One item that occurs is that the in-plan Roth rollover would normally require a distribution fee to be charged to the participant's account. That said, I'm not sure most employers will be willing to go through the hassle with payroll/payroll providers, reporting, etc. Our clients already have enough trouble just properly allocating pre-tax and Roth deferrals to the correct account - I can only imagine the screw-ups if they attempted employer contributions as Roth. I'm not a fan of the concept.

CuseFan They created both as they have transferred the assets without the trustee's knowledge as well as against the election forms signed by the participant. As for the 1099 issue, I believe there was a contract between the plan sponsor and the advisor, not fully informed but does not excuse what the advisor did, especially not contacting the plan sponsor/trustee and me. David Everything will documented with the plan sponsor/trustee. Thank you all for your input. Never a dull moment.

At least some pre-approved documents provide for an "other" election for excluding participants from the Safe Harbor contribution, where they specify that it must be "an HCE, or" ............... so I don't see any prohibition about specifically naming an HCE as excluded. But I'll ask this - why? Given that documents can provide complete flexibility to exclude all HCE's, but make a "discretionary" Safe Harbor to "any or all" HCE's - what would be the point of limiting the flexibility by specifically naming one HCE?

Imagine a plan’s sponsor seeks to exclude from a nonelective contribution (prospectively, beginning with the next plan, business-accounting, and calendar year that begins after the plan amendment), not all highly-compensated employees but one particular HCE specified by name. May a plan’s documents provide that? Or is there some IRS guidance against doing that?

In 2024, July 31 is a Wednesday, and October 15 is a Tuesday, so no weekend favors on those.