Leaderboard

Thank you so much -- this area needs all the help we can get. More info is coming out, and it just looks worse and worse; the toll both in lives and in economic loss is going to be staggering. Samaritan's Purse is on the ground -- distributing food and water, setting up field hospitals, etc. Operation Airdrop has been in the air for two days -- helicopter is the only way to get to many locations The Y'all Squad -- they're buying and installing portable StarLink units; communication (even among first responders) is the biggest struggle right now.

I am no longer a record-keeper, thank goodness, but in my previous life we absolutely informed our clients in a way very similar to what MoJo described. Like MoJo, we did not advise or decide, but we did sometimes talk to clients' attorneys at their request and provided links to helpful resources. Smaller clients seldom have attorneys or accountants who are conversant with benefits law!

If the question is may an employer restore a participant’s account for a loss that resulted from what might have been a fiduciary’s breach in planning or implementing a plan-administration change, a Treasury rule allows, as not an annual addition, such a restorative payment. “A restorative payment that is allocated to a participant’s account does not give rise to an annual addition for any limitation year. For this purpose, restorative payments are payments made to restore losses to a plan resulting from actions by a fiduciary for which there is reasonable risk of liability for breach of a fiduciary duty under title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 . . . (ERISA) or under other applicable federal or state law, where plan participants who are similarly situated are treated similarly with respect to the payments. Generally, payments to a defined contribution plan are restorative payments only if the payments are made in order to restore some or all of the plan’s losses due to an action (or a failure to act) that creates a reasonable risk of liability for such a breach of fiduciary duty[.]” 26 C.F.R. § 1.415(c)-1(b)(2)(ii)(C) https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-26/part-1/section-1.415(c)-1#p-1.415(c)-1(b)(2)(ii)(C). An employer need not concede that there was a fiduciary breach; it’s enough to find there is a reasonable risk. The amount added to an account as restoration must not exceed the loss caused by the fiduciary’s arguable breach. This is not advice to anyone.

Personally, I would send to Penchecks for a paper-trail showing that the company didn't benefit from assets of the plan. A third party feeing out is different than a fiduciary zeroing out, and is allowed so long as fees are reasonable.

We have been communicating the LTPT provisions since right after we caught our breath from CARES Act issues. Webinars, monthly newsletter articles (repeated quarterly), "datasheets" (mini-whitepapers) and lots of other communications. We charge RMs with actually having conversations with clients (wow, go figure - actually talking to clients) and targeted clients who had part-timers on the payroll - including medical PRT employees, seasonal employees, and others. We even targeted off-calendar year clients, where under S2019, some part-timers could become LTPT participants in 2023. If our clients haven't heard about LTPT, and their role in facilitating that provisions, we should fire them as undesirable clients. Absolutely positively not. We "inform." We don't decide. We are a "nondiscretionary directed ministerial service provider" with a wealth of knowledge we like to share with our clients - always for "review by counsel!" Whether they do or not, well ....

The 415(b) dollar limit is adjusted for benefit commencement dates later than age 65 using the 417(e) applicable mortality table and 5% interest. Note that the 100% of compensation limit is not adjusted. So by 85 (much earlier than that, in fact) the compensation limit will be lower than the adjusted dollar limit and will control.

Sounds like your "company" has a controlled group issue or a coverage issue. Maybe the owners created a DB plan to fund a very high benefit for themselves (10%/year of service - i.e. 100% of pay lifetime benefit after 10 years) in 2020 and is now realizing the plan didn't cover a sufficient number of employees to be in compliance with the applicable laws. This notice is essentially telling you that although you might not have known you were a participant, you might be, and since you might be a participant, we need to tell you that we are freezing the plan until we figure this out. Sounds like a mess for your "company". From your perspective, you may end up getting a benefit you never knew you were entitled to, or you might not. Since they sent you the 204(h) Notice, I suggest that you ask for a copy of the plan's SPD. That will describe how the plan works and what the benefits are. You could also look at the form 5500 which is available in public domain. It will also contain an abbreviated plan description Easiest way is to search your company's EIN, but plan name also works. https://www.efast.dol.gov/5500Search/

See these BenefitsLink discussions: https://benefitslink.com/boards/topic/71721-secure-20-60-63-catch-ups-optional-or-mandatory/ https://benefitslink.com/boards/topic/70655-increased-catch-up-limit-for-ages-60-63-mandatory/ https://benefitslink.com/boards/topic/72570-60-63-catch-ups-automatically-incorporated-relius-documents/.

The plans may be optionally (the word in the reg is "permissively") aggregated for coverage and nondiscrimination. If they pass separately, then they do not need to pass combined. If the plans are aggregated for either coverage or nondiscrimination, they must be aggregated for both. In other words, you have to use the same options for both coverage and nondiscrimination. All plans of the employer must be aggregated for the average benefits percentage test. If both plans cover a Key employee, then they are part of a required aggregation group for top heavy purposes.

Well, just to muddy these waters a bit. We are a recordkeeper and have multiple pre-approved documents for use by our clients (plan sponsors) Ever since EGTRRA, the IRS (or at least the reviewer of our 401(a)/401(k) document has MANDATED that the document contain language that PROHIBITS the deceleration of installments (including stopping them), once started, and has insisted on language that MANDATES that installments be calculated based on life expectancy at the time first taken (i.e. you can't setup installments for a fixed period of time (even if les than life expectancy). We argued, Relius says they argued (we are a major modifier of their docs) to no avail. The reviewer indicated that any flexibility would/could be a violation of the RMD rules, and therefore is not allowed (even though the RMD section clearly overrides any other distribution form, when required). Interestingly, there is no such provision in the 401(b) plan. Consequently, our document specifically precludes cessation of installments, and requires any change in installments to be a single lump sum of the balance (or arguably higher installment amounts - but that isn't clear.) Presumably, anyone else using the Relius document also has this provision - as it was in their off-the-shelf version before our modification. I think the IRS is full of it. Groom Law agrees with us, and since the reviewer is now retired, we intend to try again in the next (k) restatement. Unfortunately, we a re locked into what the document says, and even if allowed (as I believe it is), to do so would be failure to follow the terms of the document....

When a recordkeeper's customer-service person does not cite an authority, my experience suggests there is none. And even if there might be some Internal Revenue Service notice or announcement (or even a Revenue Ruling), only the Treasury department's rule binds a taxpayer.