Leaderboard

I'd leave it.

As long as you don't have stop working and rehire, elapsed time is easy. Every anniversary of DOH means vesting years = prior vesting years +1. The whole point of elapsed time is so you don't have to track hours.

Unless you have a successor plan issue.

@Bri's suggestion is simplest. Another approach is to consider clarifying that deferrals will be made from payroll periods beginning before 10/31. Keep in mind that they can amend the termination amendment to document the whatever approach works best as long as they are not taking away anything from participants.

The 404a-5 disclosure also would include other fees that may be charged to the participant such as distribution fees paid to a recordkeeper/TPA. We are a TPA and have several clients where everyone has a brokerage account. We prepare a notice for these plans and have found that the language for each plan commonly doesn't change over time. The plan administrator keeps a copy on hand. We send a reminder to the plan administrator to send out the notice and they take care of distributing it to participants. It really is a minor effort.

Would it kill them (okay, inconvenience them more than appropriate) to change the term date to 11/3?

Thanks for the advice y'all. I will leave it till she needs to be reported as a D. And Bill, ROLL TIDE!

+1 100% leave it alone.

+1

Elapsed time means elapsed time. This person will have 1 year and 7 months of vesting service.

I've never seen a truly bullet-proof answer to this question. In my prior life, we had a couple of plan terminations rescinded, where no distributions had taken place. This was done on the advice of ERISA counsel, and 100% vesting was retained, but counsel opined that there wasn't an anti-cutback violation re the distributions. (This was a very long time ago, and some of the details have undoubtedly escaped my memory.) I also wonder - if a 401(k) termination is rescinded, then does the employer have a liability for missed deferrals/match? I'd almost think so. RBG has an interesting idea.

In my opinion, you can't reverse/undo a plan term. You created a right to 100% vesting and a distributable event. What you can do is start another plan. This solves the distributable event issue because there is an alternative DC plan to transfer assets to, and you add new sources for new contributions that will be subject to vesting.

It depends on what the resolution and the plan say. Depending on what the plan requires, a resolution can effect changes, e.g., serve as the amendment itself. Or a resolution might authorize an agent to take action, such as adoption of an amendment, in accordance with the terms of the resolution. The entire context is relevant and corporate, agency, and contract law are implicated.

And if top-heavy, they accrue a top-heavy minimum life annuity in the DB plan that you need to track.

Either bring them in the DC.....or increase their DB accrual up to the gateway equivalent since it's probably not high enough to start with in the first place? Maybe check if these people are short-service enough to run in a disaggregated set of tests for the otherwise excludable? (Trying to think how the DB got the easier eligibility to get into, so maybe they use something less than the 410a max.)

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 instructions are a little confusing, but they kind of do say not to report: For line 8e, also include in the total amount a participant loan included in line 7a, column (a) that has been deemed distributed during the plan year under the provisions of Code section 72(p) and Treasury Regulations section 1.72(p)-1 only if both of the following circumstances apply: 1. Under the plan, the participant loan is treated as a directed investment solely of the participant’s individual account; and 2. As of the end of the plan year, the participant is not continuing repayment under the loan. If either of these circumstances does not apply, a deemed distribution of a participant loan should not be included in the total on line 8e. Instead, the current value of the participant loan (including interest accruing thereon after the deemed distribution) should be included on lines 7a, column (b) (plan assets – end of year), and 10g (participant loans – end of year), without regard to the occurrence of a deemed distribution. Note. The amount to be reported on line 8e must be reduced if, during the plan year, a participant resumes repayment under a participant loan reported as a deemed distribution on line 2g of Schedule H or Schedule I of a prior Form 5500 or line 8e of a prior Form 5500-SF for any earlier year. The amount of the required reduction is the amount of the participant loan that was reported as a deemed distribution on such line for any earlier year. If entering a negative number, enter a minus sign (“–”) to the left of the number. The current value of the participant loan must then be included on line 7a, column (b) (plan assets – end of year). Although certain participant loans deemed distributed are to be reported on line 8e, and are not to be reported on the Form 5500-SF or on the Schedule H or Schedule I of the Form 5500 as an asset thereafter (unless the participant resumes repayment under the loan in a later year), they are still considered outstanding loans and are not treated as actual distributions for certain purposes It says if either DO NOT apply (underlined above), then you add with 10g. Most likely, both DO apply (that's why we are here because the participant is not paying on the loan), so you would show as a deemed distribution on 8e, and not include on 10g. Also, if you have Empower clients, on their annual admin report, they break it out and it shows like this: The 5500 entries ties to the Active Loans column. Hope this helps.

Both answers are No because it has been taxed, so no longer reported on the 5500 (unless it starts to get repaid). But you keep track of them separately on your financials. So, for our val reports, we have two asset/income statements, one that ties to our participant statements, one that ties to the 5500. I couldn't find something more current, but this explains a little:

According to the ICI, there is $39,900,000,000,000 - yes, $39.9 trillion - in total retirement assets as of March 2024. This is up almost $28 trillion from $11.6 trillion since the year 2000 (remember Y2K and the prediction of the end of the world as we know it?) With all of that money and its impact on our economy, there is no way that Congress will stop meddling with retirement plans. Our biggest challenge is the rapid pace of new legislation. We have already reached a point where plans are being administered outside the terms of a formally adopted plan document and are relying on administrative intent to amend at a future date. Added to that, Congressional tinkering with funding of regulatory agencies has added to the challenge of implementing legislative changes. Further, with the passage of SECURE 2.0, several long-term practitioners decided that was the last straw and retired. In a way, we suffer from our success. While the challenges continue to mount for us as a profession and as an industry, our efforts are a significant factor to that success. Release Quarterly Retirement Market Data First Quarter 2024.pdf

Lois Baker’s link now points to this morning’s Federal Register publication.

Links to both final and proposed regs available here.

Many recordkeepers and other service providers contract LanguageLine or another interpreter business to be available on demand. LanguageLine, for example, advertises “240+ languages”. https://470255.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net/hubfs/470255/LL-2023/PDFs/US/LLS-On-Demand-Interpretation_Brochure.pdf?hsCtaTracking=f91db663-bef8-4ea8-918e-005264482470%7Cf25e9f13-1bb9-4ae3-a19c-e9d8f5b18aca A service provider might have a customer-service procedure for how one invokes an interpreter service.