Leaderboard

Solo 401(k) is a marketing term and not a real thing. Probably the only difference is that some mutual fund/brokerage providers will create a “solo” document that severely restricts the operation of the plan. They also aren’t always good at ensuring the plan document satisfies all the amendment and restatement rules. Whatever it’s called, you have to follow the eligibility, discrimination, and filing rules. Also, you have to follow the long term part time rules. I highly recommend you find a TPA to handle the compliance. It will cost you less to have it done right than it will to have someone fix it later.

I would disagree as failure to allocate the SF match is a failure to follow the terms of the Plan document is both plan qualification issue and calls into question whether you even satisfy the safe harbor rules for the year. While correction of 415 excess is address in the EPCRS procedures.

Isn't that trillion? The 7-9 zeros are the millions with 10-12 then billions so next comes trillions.

This isn't really about a deliberate grab by the employer. The employer did not choose this outcome. It is more of a function of what pension plans are generally supposed to accomplish (retirement income for the worker and spouse during their lifetimes -- not wealth transfer) and how plans are designed and funded to accomplish it. The employer made some design choices from a limited menu of options, but probably had no idea about how they would work out in specific, and unusual, circumstances such as yours. The employer did nothing directly in this matter. It was all about administering the plan in accordance with the plan terms and the QDRO terms, plus the untimely death. From your side, it certainly looks unfair to have benefits that you earned go poof.

I'll rob from Paul here to pay Peter. Paul makes an important point in emphasizing negative consent, which from a plan participant's perspective looks very different from Peter's perspective of advising a plan sponsor. In evaluating a course of action for my own clients, I always put on opposing counsel's hat to determine what their responsive legal argument might be before I make my own argument. For example, if a plan participant is going sue a plan and its fiduciaries, that participant's counsel will home in on actions taken that are arguably not in the best interests of participants, which could be shown by introducing the kinds of evidence you list in your third post, Peter. In particular, negative consent-basis actions would appear to a litigant to be a ripe target for close scrutiny, especially if an end result has demonstrably detrimental effect on participants. So yes, from a legal perspective, I would think a prudent plan fiduciary has a responsibility to consider those possible outcomes before instituting a practice that has many known unknowns and the result of which have the potential for damaging participants. If a plan participant sues, be prepared in discovery to show plan fiduciaries considered potential outcomes. Even with lots of plan policy communications to participants, jurists will consider whether the average plan participant is likely to understand them.

I'm an Enrolled Agent with similar CE requirements as ERPA. Although retired for a number of years, I've kept my EA active. I carefully read and save any correspondence from IRS about my EA. My renewal came up in 2024 and I submitted payment & renewal form online only to receive notice that I had insufficient CE for renewal. I submitted all of my CE certificates and after considerable back & forth emails was told that CE not reported on the PTIN website would only be granted if the CE certificate has the IRS program number on it. Some of this was my fault for not putting in my PTIN on the John Hancock or Erisapedia registrations, but I was unaware that it was required (having not received anything from IRS informing me of the new requirement). I was able to pull program descriptions from the Erisapedia website that included the program # and resubmitted them to IRS. From there, we went round and round via email and phone. Finally, I filed an appeal with the Director of OPR in DC and pointed out that there was no legitimate notification to practitioners of the new IRS program # requirement or of the PTIN CE website requirement - here's what I included in my appeal: 1. OPR didn't publish (in the IRB) advance guidance of the requirement that CE had to be reported on the PTIN website or that CE certificates had to include the IRS program number. Nor was I notified by letter or email of the new requirement. I scan and save all IRS correspondence related to my EA. I also save emails from IRS about my EA. I've searched my email and files and cannot find anything communicating this change in policy. 2. My IRS Letter 224B-(dated 5/25/2021) approving my 2021 EA renewal said nothing about the requirement that CE certificates include the IRS program number or that the CE must be reported on the PTIN website. 3. I've reviewed both Form 8554 (Application for EA Renewal) and the instructions for the form and there is no mention of the new requirement for CE to be reported on the PTIN website or CE certificates to include the IRS program # - https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f8554.pdf. 4. I've reviewed Publication 5186 (rev. 11-2022) and there is no mention of the new requirement for CE to be reported on the PTIN website or CE certificates to include the IRS program # -https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p5186.pdf. 5. I've reviewed your web page Enrolled Agent (EA) Renewal Reminders List (https://www.irs.gov/tax-professionals/enrolled-agent-ea-renewal-reminders-list) and there is no mention of the new requirement for CE to be reported on the PTIN website or CE certificates to include the IRS program #. 6. I've reviewed Circular 230 (rev. 6-2014, the current version) and there is no mention of the new requirement for CE to be reported on the PTIN website or CE certificates to include the IRS program # - https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/pcir230.pdf. 7. After exhaustive searching, the only reference I could find to the requirement that a CE certificate must include the IRS program number was in FAQ 8 & 9 on your website (reviewed 7/29/2022) - FAQ #8 & #9 buried deeply in your website - https://www.irs.gov/tax-professionals/faqs-enrolledagent-continuing-education-requirements. Please note that the IRS webpage entitled "General overview of taxpayer reliance on guidance published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin and FAQs" (https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/generaloverview-of-taxpayer-reliance-on-guidance-published-in-the-internal-revenue-bulletin-and-faqs) - includes the following directly below the title "The purpose of this reliance page is to confirm/explain that FAQs generally cannot be relied upon and describe authority that can be relied upon." Maybe the above will be helpful in making your case - some of the Forms/Publications cited are for EA's rather than ERPA's, but you'll get the general idea. My appeal was successful, but it took about 7 months from my initial renewal application to getting my renewal. In my discussions with OPR, had the CE been disallowed, I would have had to make it up ASAP and then they'd process my renewal. After all of that hassle, I'm watching my CE like a hawk - making sure every CE certificate shows the IRS program # and also checking that it shows up on the PTIN website. I burnt a lot of time on the renewal that could have been better spent on the tractor.