Leaderboard

I agree, and I don't like the IF in that statement. I think you can argue that if there is no interruption or distributable event for participants, no harm no foul, as you SHOULD be able to dump an underperforming service provider. Some related issues: - Will a new provider (B) allow you to open a plan mid-year if they know you have one elsewhere (A) that you will discontinue? - Will A allow you to move funds even if contributions stop? If not, Participants have two accounts until they can be consolidated - Plan limits, B likely cant account for contributions to A - 2 year distribution restriction. Will B account for time at A? I think you can do it and defend it even if its technically wrong. Sounds complicated for a dang SIMPLE though... We have been doing a lot of SIMPLE to SH conversions, just saying...

About the $250,000 tolerance, I see in the instructions no guidance about what “the employer” means. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i5500ez.pdf Following how Internal Revenue Code § 414(b)-(c)-(m)-(n)-(o) combine organizations and businesses might be a reasonable interpretation. Yet, that interpretation might be more cautious than the IRS’s interpretation. Consider also that, even if neither ERISA’s title I nor tax law requires a filing, an employer or a plan’s administrator might voluntarily file. Even when no other organization or business need be counted together with the distinct organization or business that maintains the particular plan, some prefer a filing to get a statute-of-limitations period running. This is not advice to anyone.

See Notice 2016-16 D. Prohibited Mid-Year Changes #3. Answer is no, you can't do this.

Typically one would remain the sponsor of the current plan and the other would spin off into its own plan. The spin off would likely be a short plan year unless crafted carefully at 1/1. But that’s just the way I would have done it.

For Bloomberg’s free edition of the Internal Revenue Code, it seems Bloomberg might no longer maintain the detailed formatting we liked. For rules, regulations, and even some nonrule interpretations, the Government Publishing Office’s electronic Code of Federal Regulations (ecfr.gov) is formatted and edited for detailed citations and hyperlinks. And one can use an in-context tool (right-click) to paste into your word-processing or other file a particular bit’s citation, hyperlink, or both. For example, for the ERISA 404a-5 rule’s subparagraph that defines how to count a designated investment alternative’s total annual operating expenses if the investment is not registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, the tool renders these: 29 CFR 2550.404a-5(h)(5)(ii) https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-29/part-2550/section-2550.404a-5#p-2550.404a-5(h)(5)(ii) The eCFR and many other U.S. government resources can be found from https://www.govinfo.gov/. (In most internet locators, typing as little as “govinfo.gov” calls up this webpage.)

When in doubt, I'd take the conservative route and file. Filing is easy even if technically not required, not filing is very expensive if you later find out it was required and you didn't.

There are a few sources listed here: https://benefitslink.com/research.html I'm not seeing that any have the format you're describing, though.

Yes, it can be. But the existing benefit forms must be preserved, at least with respect to the portions of people's accounts derived from contributions made prior to the change. So even though the plan is now a PSP, it will be paying life annuities/joint and survivor annuities.

I use this one: https://www.irs.gov/privacy-disclosure/tax-code-regulations-and-official-guidance By the way, although this is an IRS site, other information is also available (eg, the Department of Labor is under Title 29, etc.) If I "misplace" that bookmark, I'll go to the Cornell Law School reference: https://www.law.cornell.edu/

You can't merge a 401(a) plan such as a money purchase plan with a 403(b) plan. You could leave the money purchase plan in place for the old money and just have the new money go into the 403(b) plan, but that would involve a lot of administrative hassles. Or you could terminate the money purchase plan and allow people to take their money, potentially with an option to roll it over into the 403(b) plan.

Never heard of that. I've had lots of plans switch providers mid-year. These are all 401k/PS plans I'm speaking of.

Plan and plan sponsor also have to have the same tax year to rely on the automatic extension. Best bet is still to file a 5558

The automatic extension applies only if the Plan Sponsor has extended their corporate return and is only until the due date of the corporate return. So, the extension may only be until 9/15. Using this method is more of a fallback method if the Form 5558 filing is accidently missed. It is a more conservative approach to file the Form 5558 Extension rather than rely on the corporation return being extended.

In my mind, option 1 is very problematic for one very simple reason. Despite a participant making two elections (one for regular and one for catch-up) from the get-go, the amounts withheld pursuant to the catch-up election ARE NOT CATCH-UP CONTRIBUTIONS UNTIL A PLAN/REGULATORY LIMIT IS REACHED. Consider an employee who terminates mid-year, after the employer made a "tax-election" on behalf of the participant, without considering their entire tax situation, and then it turns out that the catch-up contributions are NOT catch-ups, because a limit wasn't reached. The employer just potentially cost the participant tax consequences unnecessarily, and "malpracticed" it at the same time. I'm a lawyer (but not a litigator) but if a large enough employer did that, then maybe had mass layoffs costing many people money, I'd brush up on my class-action litigation skills (or referral skills) rather quickly. As a recordkeeper, we hate all available options, but the single election with spillover seems less problematic. That said, my recordkeeping employer uses the dual election method (and when this becomes effective, it will impact me personally.) Frankly, I'm not going to be working long enough for the numbers of beginning Roth contributions to work, so my after-tax savings won't be in the plan.... I expect this will impact a number of those who are going to be subject to this rule....