Leaderboard

It is Age AND Service, so September 15, 2025 is when they first meet both the Age AND Service conditions. The they will enter the first entry date after September 15, 2025. If it is calendar year plan with first day of plan year and first day of 7th month that would be January 1, 2026. edited to take into account David Rigby comment.

What is the basis for that? I do not see in §1.411(a)-5(b)(3) any reference to distinction by plan type. If it is a "replacement" plan, then sure, but is it? And if it is, what makes a DB plan not to be a "replacement plan"? The old plan exists, and a new plan is being added to accomodate whatever, with a different structure of benefits and vesting.

I mentioned bankruptcy because unless the business is bankrupt or the owner (who is a fiduciary) is bankrupt (unless the corporate veil is pierced which is something I know nothing about beyond the term), I don't see how you get out of funding the contribution.

Well, assuming the plan uses "January 1" as a defined Entry Date. However, it might use "December 31". Verify.

A retirement plan’s trust may, unless the plan’s or trust’s governing documents provide otherwise, pay the portion of a service provider’s fee fairly allocated to “reasonable expenses of administering the plan[.]” ERISA § 404(a)(1)(A)(ii). This is not advice to anyone.

I had a client once that went bankrupt. The Plan is simply a creditor. When assets are liquidated they get a piece just like every other creditor. Closing the doors is different than a bankruptcy liquidation. They should definitely be talking to a bankruptcy attorney. As the saying goes, you can't get water out of a stone. Sure they owe the money but if the well is dry, yada yada. If the 100% business owner has money outside the business that is clearly where the exposure is.

The SS Fairness (??) Act doesn't create a new automatic entitlement to benefits for ex spouses just because the ex spouse starts receiving benefits after the law's change.

Sounds like there is a very large prohibited Transaction. I have seen people criminally charged for less egregious things.

What does the to-be-ended agreement provide about how much notice, and what manner of notice, the service recipient must give the service provider to end the agreement? Further, what does the agreement provide for whether the service provider’s fee is earned on the beginning of a period, or is apportioned regarding a partial-performance period? Just as BenefitsLink neighbors often suggest to discern a retirement plan’s provisions Read The Fabulous Document, consider a similar step in dealing with a service provider. If there is a doubt about what the agreement provides or about whether the agreement's provision or condition is legally valid, a prudent fiduciary would get its lawyer's advice. This is not advice to anyone.

I'm pretty sure, but don't have time to check right now, that the proposed regulations specified that if the participant is still alive, distributions from the Roth portion do not satisfy RMD requirements.

If I remember correctly, the last year a SARSEP could be established - which allowed pre-tax salary deferrals - was 1996. Surprised a custodian would accept the funds - unless they didn't know the contribution source. Towanda is on point on the correction. The funds have to be distributed out of the accounts. The custodian will be required to file 1099Rs.

Before imagining potential corrections, a service provider might first evaluate whether it wants as its client a person that acts without asking for advice.