Leaderboard

1099 is for the year in which the distribution occurs. He’ll get two distributions in 2025. One or two 1099s depending on how y’all produce them. Age used for the 2024 RMD paid by 4/1/25 is the 2024 age.

Every plan document I've ever seen outlines what happens if there is no beneficiary. So, the Plan Administrator would follow that guidance and pay whomever it states to pay. Where it goes from there is likely covered by other laws and regulations.

"Oldie but Goodie": The Inte-Greater The IRS Checklist for Permitted Disparity (Publication 4962) describes the formulas in some detail.

The disconnect in the conversation may by that the TH contribution for each non-key participant is enough so that when the TH is added to the participant's employer contributions and match, the total equals the TH minimum. Everyone does not get the same TH contribution, and if a participant already has contributions from the employer that exceed the participant's TH minimum amount, that participant does not get an additional TH contribution. Keep in mind that elective deferrals count towards the TH amount for key employees, so in this case if the TH is 1.6% of compensation, this key employee already has 1.6% counted and does not get any more employer contributions.

The simple solution to avoid that is to exclude key employees from the T-H minimum in the plan document. Otherwise yes if the key employees get the TH minimum along with everyone else then any key deferral or VAT would trigger a 3% for everyone when it is all said and done.

The IRS's historical position was that, with a few exceptions that wouldn't be pertinent here, discretionary plan amendments could not be effective for plan years before the year in which they were adopted. SECURE Act 2.0 partially reversed that policy. New IRC §401(b)(3) provides that an amendment that increases benefits may be effective as of any day in the preceding plan year, so long as adoption is no later than the extended due date, including extensions, of the employer's income tax return for the taxable year within which ends the plan year that contains the effective date. Since adding tips to the plan's definition of "compensation" can only increase benefits, it is unobjectionable. I agree with the previous comments about the practical difficulties of taking tips into account, except for tips that are reported on employees' W-2's.

Right, and don't assume that a court (or the decedent's will) gets to decide. The plan provisions must be followed first. On another matter, if the $$ goes to the estate of the deceased beneficiary, keep in mind that the estate is not a natural person and (therefore) cannot open (or roll to) an IRA.

If a survivor or death benefit (if any) results from the decedent’s service as an employee of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, consider that Federal law might govern the benefit, and that the statute or rule might be unfamiliar to one who lacks experience with benefits for U.S. government employees.

Peter: This is a belated response to your post in March, 2024: See attached Memo dealing the courts that have found plans who did not believe they were ERISA qualified were in fact qualified. Other workarounds are also discussed. David PRELIMINARY ISSUES.pdf

@Peter Gulia tagging him so he's more likely to see this.

Just another I believe you are right about that. you jogged my memory.