Leaderboard

Whether a member’s K-1 from a limited-liability company reports income items, loss items, or some of each kind doesn’t necessarily tell you the fair-market value of the member’s LLC interests. If the LLC is taxed as a partnership, remember that different members of a limited-liability company might have different interests. One member might have only a guaranteed-payment right. Another member might have an income interest but no loss interest. Yet another member might bear loss interests, including those not borne by other members. Even if the whole company has a year’s loss or several years’ losses, that by itself does not mean that a particular member’s LLC interests lack value, or even that capital interests lack value. If an asset is not regularly traded on an exchange, doesn’t a third-party administrator rely on what the plan’s administrator says is the value?

Certainly what the plan says about compensation will have a bearing on the answer, but the following observation may help focus on what appears to be a disconnect in Jane's argument. If I follow the description correctly: Jane's S-corp PC owns part of the LLP. Jane's S-corp PC gets earned income from the LLP which would be reported on a Form K-1 (1065) Jane's S-corp PC would send Jane as an S-corp shareholder a Form K-1 (1120s) which would identify her W-2 earnings, S-corp dividends and various other allocations of income and expenses. Jane receives a W-2 from Jane's S-corp PC. I expect that Jane's income on the W-2 is less than the income Jane's S-Corp PC received from the LLP by amounts listed in the 3rd bullet, and Jane would like to have the higher income considered as plan compensation. The amounts reported on Form K-1 (1065) to Jane's S-corp PC is not plan compensation, and only Jane's W-2 income from the S-corp is plan compensation. There always do seem to be some special rules somewhere out there, but the reporting path for Jane's income should be fully documented through all of the returns filed for Jane and her businesses. Jane or her advisors should be willing to provide that information to you.

You misunderstand the application of Norris. The ruling states that you cannot use different tables for males vs. females. You can use any table so long as it is reasonable for the stated purpose, and defined in the plan (ie, the "definitely determinable" requirement of ERISA), and you apply it equally for males and females. Using different tables for participants vs. beneficiaries is also acceptable (likely, it is advisable). The definition you quote is probably reasonable, but other reasonable tables are also possible. The Enrolled Actuary can provide examples of several different tables/updates.

Hi, I sent you a message about this. Happy to help.

Yes to all the above. ASC is clunky to me as well. If ASC seemed like the 90s, Datair is the 80s. They both (and relius) have more total features than FTW, but I have never missed any of them after migrating to FTW. I have migrated many plans from Relius, ASC, and Datair to FTW. Migration from Relius is pretty simple. FTW will help you build a DER to extract the data, and then you use a template in FTW to import. 80 plans won't be that bad to migrate.

Get a full demo with FTW. It does balance forward RK. Their support - even after being acquired by Wolters Kluwer - remains fantastic. The web-based interface is also ideal so there is nothing to install. If you use them for docs, gov't forms and admin (testing/valn/etc) there is a lot of integration.

You have 30 days after the year ends for after-tax amounts to count as annual additions for the prior year. So definitely too late for 2024 but perfectly timed to do 2025 amounts currently.

Los Angeles Dep’t of Water & Power v. Manhart, 435 U. S. 702, 708, 709-711 (Apr. 25, 1978) (“Even a true generalization about the class is an insufficient reason for disqualifying an individual to whom the generalization does not apply.”) (An employer violated Title VII by requiring its female employees to make larger contributions to a pension fund than male employees to obtain the same monthly benefits upon retirement.) (Congress decided that classifications based on sex, like those based on national origin or race, are unlawful.), https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep435/usrep435702/usrep435702.pdf. Arizona Governing Committee for Tax Deferred Annuity and Deferred Compensation Plans v. Norris, 463 U.S. 1073, 1081, 1084 (July 6, 1983) (“[T]he classification of employees on the basis of sex is no more permissible at the pay-out stage of a retirement plan than at the pay-in stage.”) (“The use of sex-segregated actuarial tables to calculate retirement benefits violates Title VII whether or not the tables reflect an accurate prediction of the longevity of women as a class[.]”), https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep463/usrep4631073/usrep4631073.pdf.

Generally applicable across the board, getting affirmative elections is better than using default elections.

Although I am an attorney, this is not legal advice to anyone. Consult with the plan's legal counsel. They will tell you to do one of two things: (1) file a lawsuit in federal court called an interpleader in which the plan offers to pay the money to the party determined to be entitled to it by the court -- you may need to deposit the account balance with the court. The court will decide --and your client avoids the worry of paying twice and of having to fight to get the money back from the party who was determined not to be entitled to the account; or (2) decide the claim with counsel's advice and pay the person to whom it is properly payable. As far as disclosing materials submitted by the spouse, I know that the ERISA requirements do not compel the plan to share that information with the other person, with two exceptions: (1) if you grant the wife's appeal and inform the daughter that she is not entitled to the benefit, the claims procedure regulations require you to share the information with the claimant; and (2) if someone sues, the mother and daughter will be parties to the lawsuit and their attorneys will be entitled to relevant documents during discovery in the litigation. To short-circuit the process and maybe resolve this short of litigation, I would suggest that you share the information with the daughter and that you propose interpleader as an amicable way to resolve the issue. But Remember, I am not the plan's lawyer -- you will need to defer to him or her for the final recommenation.

Good point. You CAN do it, but that doesn't mean that you should. FWIW, Im adding Roth and IPRR to all plans that allow catch-up.

The SMM timing (legal requirement) severely lags the effective date of implementation, I suggest a best practice would be some sort of consolidated communication disclosing that and whatever else the employer is implementing/enhancing under SECURE 2.0. That is, take the current opportunity to "blow the trumpet" and get some positive PR - "as allowed by recent law changes we're making our plan better for you by ..."

Return and re-issue proper checks is probably the best way to fix.