Leaderboard

Although not recently, we used to see mistakes where Plan A contribution was mistakenly deposited into Plan B. The solution was simple: just transfer it to the correct location/trust. If you need an adjustment for earnings, make a reasonable estimate and do it. But do it immediately, and document it completely.

If the MPPP component is currently active then an advance 204h notice is required prior to such component being frozen/terminated. Only affected participants (active in the MPPP component) need get notice. If the MPPP component is not active as it was frozen previously, for which a 204h would have been required at that time, terminating the plan with that component does not trigger another 204h requirement. We see this all the time in DB world - issue 204h notice when plan is frozen, not again at termination (but is referenced in the Notice of Intent to Terminated - "NOIT").

Yeah, the times I have seen this error we didn't put this much thought into it. We got the money moved to the correct plan. If we thought it was material there was some earnings transferred. I have to admit I don't recall any of these plans ever getting an IRS or DOL audit also. But at times the KISS Principle works.

CuseFan is correct in pointing out that the 80/120 is used for determining whether the plan must file a 5500 versus a 5500-SF. BPF916, the 1-100 participants for the start-up credit really is not black and white. The count is based on the employer: having 100 or fewer employees (not participants) who had compensation of at least $5,000 (regardless of plan eligibility) in the preceding year (subject to an available election to have the first credit year be the year preceding the year containing the effective date of the plan) There also is a 2 Year Grace Period where the employer is considered eligible for the credit for the 2 years following the last year the employer was eligible. Check out all of the eligibility criteria because there are certain conditions that will disqualify an employer from taking the credit such as the employer was involved with a merger, or there are related companies with existing plans, or if the employer had a plan in the 3 years prior to the new plan. None of this has to do with the 80/120 rule.

The 80/120 rule only applies with respect to which 5500 form a plan may file, nothing else that I know of.

Going fully remote with no experience in the field likely will be next to impossible. Consider a strategy that demonstrates a strong work ethic and commitment to learning the business along with establishing some personal contacts with people in the business. Pursuing starting to build professional credentials by enrolling in courses available from industry groups/associations like ASPPA. A QKA (Qualified 401K Administrator) would be a great start, as would a RPF Certificate (Retirement Plan Fundamentals). There are many different types of firms that work with retirement plans - third party administrators, recordkeepers, financial advisors, accountants, banks/brokerage houses... - so explore opportunities with any of these firms that are close enough for starting out with a hybrid approach. Look for professional associations that hold periodic, in-person events. They provide opportunities to connect face-to-face with industry professionals. There also are some mentoring opportunities such as the Thrive Mentoring Program. You can find additional here: https://www.usaretirement.org/get-involved/special-initiatives/thrive-mentoring-program/ It will be a challenge, but the professionals in the retirement plan industry welcome anyone who is committed to working in the field. Best of luck to your daughter!

Any way to amend the trust so that a single trust holds both plans assets rather than moving dollars? I would have legal counsel opine because I don’t know that it can be done after the fact. But we do know it can exist.

Federal income tax law does not preclude a governmental § 457(b) plan from accepting a rollover contribution if: the distributed-from plan is a § 402(c)(8)(B) eligible retirement plan; the distribution is a § 402(c)(4) eligible rollover distribution; the governmental § 457(b) plan provides that the plan accepts rollover contributions; and the § 457(b) plan separately accounts for rollover contributions, including separately accounting for those not from another governmental § 457(b) plan. See 26 C.F.R. § 1.457-10(e) https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-26/part-1/section-1.457-10#p-1.457-10(e). Beyond this, a governmental employer should get its lawyer’s advice about State and other local laws. This is not advice to anyone.

I agree with Connie in that some attorney's feel the CBA can override 411(d)(6). I personally do not agree, but like Connie, they are the attorney so let them defend it if necessary. I have also worked with attorney's who disagree and would implement that change as soon as administratively feasible, after required 15/90 day notice requirement. This is obviously the advise I would give, but not my monkey if the attorney feels otherwise. I have a little concern over your words, "remove or reduce the required employer contribution". I assume this is a single employer plan and not a multiemployer plan? If so, you cannot remove or reduce the required MRC that is determined under Section 430 (i.e. Schedule SB requirements). You may be able to reduce the negotiated contribution, but that doesn't eliminate the employers obligation to satisfy the requirements of Section 430.

If ERISA § 204(h) calls for a notice, the plan’s administrator provides the notice. ERISA § 104(h)(1). Some plans’ administrators engage a service provider’s help in delivering a notice. Whether ERISA § 204(h) calls for a notice turns on whether the plan is an “applicable pension plan”, including an individual-account plan “subject to the funding standards of [Internal Revenue Code §] 412[.]” ERISA § 104(h)(8)(B)(ii). Also, whether the plan amendment would “provide for a significant reduction in the rate of future benefit accrual[.]” ERISA § 104(h)(1). ERISA § 104(h)(2) calls for a § 204(h) notice to “be written in a manner calculated to be understood by the average plan participant and [to] provide sufficient information . . . to allow applicable individuals to understand the effect of the plan amendment.” A plan’s administrator might want its lawyer’s advice about whether a communication about other aspects of a plan’s discontinuance, final distribution, a distributee’s right to direct a rollover if the distribution is an eligible rollover distribution, and the plan’s termination might include enough information to meet ERISA § 204(h). (Some administrators hope to get everything done in one delivery, and even one writing.) ERISA § 204, unofficially compiled as 29 U.S.C. § 1054 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2023-title29/html/USCODE-2023-title29-chap18-subchapI-subtitleB-part2-sec1054.htm. This is not advice to anyone.

This really should be addressed in future EPCRS because it's more common (plans' assets getting mixed up between them) than half the stuff they worry about in the Rev Proc as it is!

Hi Belgarath, I worked on a defined benefit plan many many years ago that was covered by a Union. The Union agreed to the retroactive freezing of accruals. I brought up the anti-cutback rules to the attorneys involved in the negotiations and was told that the CBA took precedence over ERISA regulations. They did not give me a reference site but they were the attorneys in charge so I did not argue the point.