Leaderboard

Well for 2023 you can test otherwise excludable separately so you shouldn't have an ADP testing failure. For 2023 you'll need at least a top heavy minimum for the employee and a QNEC for the missed deferral opportunity. But you should be able to self correct under recent IRS guidance and the most recent EPCRS procedure. For 2024 the solo-k should just be restated, no need to open a 2nd plan. Look at the EPCRS procedure for any additional missed deferral opportunity than may be required. You are also going to have 401(k) testing and TH minimum so you might want to consider adding a 3% safe harbor non elective prior to November 30.

Hey, if the taxes were extended until 10/15/2024 it's still not too late yet to allocate annual additions for the 12/31/2023 plan year. Also, the types of contributions already made might provide a little more into what he's on the hook for, relating to the employee.

If the auditor wants to put a reconciling item in their report let them and don't care. I can't recall that ever being an issue with the IRS or DOL when they come a knocking. In fact I wished more auditors would use that option instead of demanding I change the Sch H. Often times it is they want to reclassify something and not change the totals. Just agree to disagree and move on.

Good luck to both of us! We work with an actuary that does governmental plans, and she was not aware of any companies doing what we are looking for. She inquired of an ERISA attorney about a fee to draft a document (for this 8-person Governmental DB plan) and was quoted $30,000.

This is your first misstep and misunderstanding: ”When we are on notice of a divorce through the death certificate, we ask the estate or beneficiary to provide a divorce decree or separation agreement to determine if there is a possible DRO … .” Setting aside the mistaken position published by the DOL about being on notice concerning a potential DRO, the plan is not on notice about a potential DRO when the “notice” is of a divorce from a death certificate that is not presented in connection with some other form of notice expressly about an existing or prospective domestic relations order. Divorce, by itself, means nothing under ERISA 206(d)(3) and does not to require the plan to do anything. The plan has to keep an eye out for notice about a prospective domestic relations order that could affect plan interests, and the plan’s written QDRO procedures should address the detail. Shame on the plan documents you are working with. Don’t go looking for trouble. You will find it in your actions, not in duties that don’t exist. In particular, if you can ascertain that the divorce is a year or more in the past, you should have complete comfort about proceeding with the normal processing relating to payment of beneficiaries. Especially in defined benefit plans, the participant’s former spouse is in a race against death and remarriage. I am not suggesting that death of the participant precludes a QDRO, but time works against a would-be alternate payee and the plan is protected against dereliction. I also think that you are overly concerned that somewhere in ancient history the plan did not attend to a domestic relations order or an acceptable notice about prospects of a domestic relations order. The passage of time will also protect the plan, even in the case of the plan’s dereliction. Would-be alternate payees have an obligation to prosecute their claims to benefits. I would not go too far back in my search for trouble on that account, either. I am not faulting the goodwill and good intentions of your concerns. However, fiduciaries get into trouble by trying to do too much and going beyond the bounds of their duties and responsibilities while trying to help, especially when there is potential contest over benefits. Unfortunately, bad things like those you fear do happen to alternate payees, usually through the fault of their incompetent lawyers.

Well i will say if they got rid of the auto enrollment rule that would be ok with me (I would be over the moon actually). Auto enrollment already exists and the related infrastructure. IT was only a question of whether it was mandatory.

Generally, protected benefits are based on eligibility for the benefit, timing, and available sources. Looking at some of the new types of distributions, it seems reasonable to conclude that these are protected: QBAD - Qualified Birth or Adoption Distribution QDRD - Qualified Disaster Relief Distribution (note that some plans are considering provisions that constrain the availability and amounts of these distributions to specific events or to geographic areas) EEW - Emergency Expense Withdrawal DAVD - Domestic Abuse Victim Distribution Not protected are: PLESA - Pension Linked Emergency Savings Accounts (the plan sponsor can amend the plan to eliminate the feature at any time) TIID - Terminal Illness Individual Distribution (TIID is payable if there is an in-service withdrawal available, and that in-service withdrawal would be a protected benefit, but the other features of the TIID are not protected) Hopefully, some of our BL colleagues will offer some insight and perspective to these and any other of the new types of distributions.

A common reminder among BenefitsLink neighbors is Read The Fabulous Document. While RTFD is often suggest about an employment-based retirement plan, that pointer also can bring information to a question about an Individual Retirement Account. Read the IRA trust, custodial-account, or annuity agreement. Not all IRAs have the same provisions.