Leaderboard

By any chance was the employee who did the rollover in - a decision maker ? Owner, director, trustee, HCE etc? Depending on the structure of the service provided by the recordkeeper/custodian - I wonder who approved the rollover. For smaller plans - the participant might fill out a form to let the plan know they are submitting a rollover, and the plan administrator, trustee etc might have to approve that before the custodian or recordkeeper will actually process the incoming dollars. In my experience - when plans are brand new - there aren't a lot of rank and file employees chomping at the bit to get their money into the new plan. The ones who are best positioned to immediately do a rollover in are the ones who have known about the new plan the longest, typically the decision makers or power players at the sponsor. Edit to add: who prepares/maintains the plan document? if a bundled provider it is typically the recordkeeper as well. If is someone else - the recordkeeper might not have any idea when the plan document is actually signed or effective, and just goes off their provision intake form. Not saying that is right. Just saying I see it done that way.

Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C.) § 401(a)(9)(C)(v) provides: “(I) In the case of an individual who attains age 72 after December 31, 2022, and age 73 before January 1, 2033, the applicable age is 73. (II) In the case of an individual who attains age 74 after December 31, 2032, the applicable age is 75.” This morning’s notice of a final rule to interpret § 401(a)(9) reserves how to interpret that ambiguity, and refers to this morning’s notice of proposed rulemaking. Footnote 7 on page 58891, page 58911 (publishing to-be-codified 26 C.F.R. § 1.401(a)(9)–2(b)(2)(v) [Reserved]). In that notice, the Treasury department proposes to set the applicable age for someone born in 1959 as 73. But the notice explains no reason for Treasury’s choice of 73, rather than 75. BenefitsLink neighbors, if it were your job in the Treasury department to choose 73 or 75 (or something else) and to write a reasoning that explains your choice as the best interpretation of the statute, would you choose: 73? 75? 74? And, most important, why? If you could ground your choice on a canon of statutory construction, which would you use? And if not some legal-sounding reasoning, what explanation could you give that still respects the idea that the Treasury department must seek to give effect to Congress’s intent?

What does your termination/freeze amendment and or Plan Document say? You may or may not have to give an accrual to anyone employed on the termination date depending on how they are worded. If you only have an HCE accruing a benefit though you still need to pass all testing for your final year. (401(a)(26), 410(b), 401(a)(4), 416, etc.)

What do you mean by 'supplemental refund' ? Are you asking about a pension plan? 401(k) plan? something else? Are you asking what happens when a person has a zero account balance due to distribution, and then receives an additional contribution? More specificity is needed to understand your question.

The 10% default withholding rule applies. That's because the law provides that these are not eligible rollover distributions (if they were, then the 20% withholding rules would apply). (i) EXEMPTION OF DISTRIBUTIONS 20 FROM TRUSTEE TO TRUSTEE TRANSFER AND WITHHOLDING RULES.—For purposes of sections 401(a)(31), 402(f), and 3405, qualified disaster recovery distributions shall not be treated as eligible rollover distributions.

The proposed 401(a)(9) regulations address the issue (as pointed out in prior responses, the answer is no). https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2024-14543.pdf. From the preamble (underline added by me): Under proposed §1.401(a)(9)-5(g)(2)(iii), a distribution from a designated Roth account made in a calendar year for which the employee is required to take a minimum distribution under the plan would not count towards satisfying that requirement. Consistent with this rule, the proposed regulations would provide that such a distribution is not treated as a required minimum distribution for purposes of §1.402(c)-2(f). Thus, the distribution could be rolled over to a Roth IRA if it otherwise meets the requirements to be an eligible rollover distribution.

Plan participant was at RBD in his year of death presumably since 2023 RMD was issued. If surviving spouse is at RMD age, then beginning in 2024, the ULT would be applied using her age, recalculated for each distribution year thereafter.

It sounds as if the plan fiduciaries no longer want to be bothered with fulfilling their responsibilities. The plan exists, needs to operate in full compliance with all operational, reporting and disclosure requirements until the plan distributes all assets to participants and is properly terminated. I suggest pointing this out to the former partners who as partners shared plan sponsor responsibilities and also pointing this out to any other party that acts or acted as the Plan Administrator. Also consider informing the company for which the investment brokers worked. If a participant has not yet filed a claim, having a participant file a claim will start the clock for requiring the plan to respond. If the plan fiduciaries don't get their act together, then consider getting the DOL involved by having a participant bring the issue to their attention. The DOL likely will follow up with each these individuals to explain what needs to be done and what happens if no one steps up. The DOL may deem this an abandoned plan and bring in an administrator to wrap things up. Some plan documents allow a trustee or a plan participant who is elected by the other plan participants to represent the plan through the close out. Don't make this your problem. If the DOL does not get actively involved, then the remaining participants should consider engaging legal counsel to lead them through the process of retrieving their benefits.

If the business that established the retirement plan no longer does business, is a remaining participant severed from employment? If so, is such a participant entitled to a distribution (even if the plan is not ended)? Has a remaining participant submitted to the plan’s administrator a claim for a retirement distribution?

Subparagraph (I) sets the RMD at age 73 for someone born in 1959, so regardless of what Subparagraph (II) says the person has an RMD due for the 2032 plan year. The conundrum is (II) says that same person turns age 74 in the 2033 plan year so the person has an RMD due for the 2034 plan year. Arguably as written, a person born in 1959 gets to skip an RMD for the 2033 plan year, or a person born in 1959 must have an RMD for the 2033 plan year because RMDs began under (I). Had (II) been written to say it supersedes (I), then there is a skip. If (II) does not supersede (I), then there is no skip. I don't think any of this has to do with Congressional intent other than Congress was looking at ways to balance out the revenue impact of the overall package. They look at a 10-year horizon for their impact analysis which would explain why the change to 75 was set for year 2033 - 10 years after the adoption of SECURE 2.0. Considering the potential impact of the recent decision on Chevron, the IRS should either hope for a clarifying amendment or go with the skip.