Leaderboard

Many of you know that BenefitsLink is headquartered in the mountains of North Carolina. Thankfully, we're safe and sound, albeit without cell service and primary internet (thank goodness for StarLink!). Many around us are not. We know that Florida and Georgia experienced significant damage. The mountains of North Carolina and Tennessee took a devastating hit. Over 2' of rain fell in a large swath of the NC mountains; the runoff put rivers at historic flood levels. Power, cell and internet service are all down over a large area, roads are collapsed or otherwise impassable, and many homes and small towns are completely isolated -- or washed away. Two of the four interstate routes in/out of Asheville -- the two that cross the mountains to the west -- have washed out; a third route (to the east) is blocked in several places. The damage is almost unbelievable -- and the affected area is almost the size of Massachusetts. This area is not equipped or prepared for this level of catastrophic destruction. Mountain people are self-reliant survivors, both individually and collectively, but this will be quite a stretch. It will be a long, difficult road forward. Please keep all in this area in your thoughts and prayers. And if any of our BenefitsLink neighbors have been affected, please reach out on this thread - we'll do what we can to help. Lois and Dave

The end of December marked the end (at least for now) of my 41+ years in this business, starting as a part time DC system programmer (before I knew what a "forfeiture" was) and ending as an Enrolled Actuary with all the ASPPA exams completed as well. I have also been a Benefitslink Board participant for more than 23 years. Here, as well as through the exams, is where I learned my stuff. I am grateful for the learning, teaching and helping opportunities (and more than a little fun) created by Dave and Lois Baker through this awesome system. Their efforts aren't appreciated enough. Thanks also to the countless Board participants that have educated and helped me over the years; and I hope I've been able able to help others as well. I still plan to linger now and then but goodbye and Happy New Year for now! Thanks again Dave and Lois.

This is to share with you the happy news that today is the 25th anniversary of the first day on which the BenefitsLink Newsletter began daily publication. I didn't see this coming when I decided to go daily in 1999, at age 41. (The newletters had begun four years earlier, but they weren't being published every day.) The free information must be helping employee benefits practitioners to help their clients, which translates to the ability of employers to effectively run and fund programs that improve the lives of so many millions of working people (and retirees, and beneficiaries), even if most of them wouldn't know (or want to know) the difference between an ERISA and an eraser. What a noble endeavor, to be an employee benefits practitioner! Some lawyers and TPAs and other benefits practitioners have found work through our job board that's been running since 1996, which means they've gone to new workplaces and sometimes new cities, which means some of them have met people they wouldn't have met otherwise, which means some of them have fallen in love and then had children... which means there are people walking around on the planet now who wouldn't be here but for this "web site" thingie that started in 1995, and then the idea of sending "newsletters" by "email." None of that would have been possible without readers. The existence of "BenefitsLink babies" didn't occur to me until one day about 10 years ago, but I kept it quiet -- at that time, they were still teenagers! True to form, I and my business partner and wife Lois Baker (formerly an employee benefits lawyer, whom I met on CompuServe in 1990 while trading ERISA questions using dial-up modems) have failed to do any marketing of this happy day. But as I sat here at the keyboard today I had the idea that we would get so much joy by celebrating the occasion with readers. I hope this hasn't come across as a commercial but instead is the lifting of an E-flute of cyber-champagne -- here's to employee benefits practitioners everywhere! It's a wonderful community, and for 25 years now and still counting, we are so happy to be a part of it.

I don't know about you all but I find these discussions much more interesting and enriching compared to the "what compensation do I use to calculate the safe harbor contribution?" questions that make me feel like we're doing someone else's job of basic training their staff.

I don't have a spreadsheet that I can share, but if I did, it would have these column headings: Attorney name Phone number Email address What I am saying is, there is not a deterministic formula for saying if an ASG exists or not. You need to make a number of factual determinations, including: Is a particular organization a service organization? What entity is the first service organization? Does one organization regularly perform services for another? Is a significant portion of the entity's income derived from providing services? Are the services performed by one entity of a type historically performed by another? There are no spreadsheet functions to answer these questions.

I wonder if divying up the horse when time comes for a distribution is where the term "quarter horse" comes from.

Michael B. Preston, who was an enrolled actuary, was a giant in the pension field. He contributed so much to the employee benefits community. He posted 6,569 messages onto these message boards since he joined in 2001 (!) -- questions, answers and comments that helped to inform and educate hundreds, perhaps thousands, of his peers. They're all still here and on the search engines, so his wisdom and humor will continue long into the future. During the 1990s, Mike was a system operator of the PIX ("Pension Information eXchange") BBS (i.e., a "bulletin board system"). PIX basically was a server running proprietary software on a particular dedicated personal computer that had a dedicated telephone number. Members would use their PC (and a modem) to connect via a long distance phone call, so that the latest discussions could be downloaded for reading and for adding comments. Later, when the World Wide Web became popular and PIX closed, Mike become an active participant and later a "moderator" on these BenefitsLink message boards. An outstanding servant and leader in his profession, Mike was awarded the Edward E. Burrows Distinguished Service Award in 2017 by the ASPPA College of Pension Actuaries, which is "presented annually to a pension actuary who has gone above and beyond in forwarding ethics, education, beneficial legislation or regulations that enhance the private pension system or the professionalism of enrolled actuaries within the private pension system." We will miss him so much!

We don't know yet. IRS has not issued any instructions on this. My advice to anyone who wants to do this, is to do an in-plan Roth conversion instead. You will get the same tax result through a well-understood process.

We are no longer a service provider to the plan and unable to assist you with the information you are requesting as we have no access to that data and no contractual agreement with that Plan or Sponsor. Please contact the ERISA Plan Administrator and/or Plan Trustee. Our last records which we have previously provided to you indicate they are X and Y. The last known address and phone in our records is _______ and _________. We wish you luck in enforcing the right of the participants with the legally responsible parties but are unable to offer any further assistance. Just repeat that ever time they call.

Mistake or not, the participant's actual election was executed, so I say have them fix it going forward and deal with it. Why is it always the collective "we" - plan sponsors, advisors, TPAs, RKs - that are asked to bend over backwards to accommodate a participant's mistake, poor judgment, or lack of attention? When is the participant held accountable for not doing what (s)he is supposed to and then months or years later comes looking for help on situation (s)he could have rectified almost immediately had (s)he paid the slightest attention? I'm sorry, but if I intended to make a PRE-TAX deferral from my pay and my income tax withholdings remained the same, I would have noticed and said something - if not after the first pay period, certainly within a few. Sorry for the rant, and I don't do this administration so I don't deal with these situations - but you all do - and don't you have enough work and have enough plan sponsor and advisor administrative "issues" to fix already? OK, I'm done. Also, it's 9/11, so let's remember those we lost that terrible day and from its aftermath.

Both the AA and the BPD comprise a plan sponsor's plan document. Therefore, to the extent a provision is delineated in the BPD without any corresponding AA selection, the BPD governs and should be followed. Not everything can/will/need to be outlined/selected in the AA and anything that is not expressly provided in the AA via a permissible selection is subject to any BPD mandates.

I am not an attorney, just a lowly TPA, but when I started reviewing the ACT, I thought I would create a spreadsheet that I could sort by the code section, effective date, etc. This was just my first run through and obviously needs to be updated, but please feel free to take it and make it your own. Secure 2.0 Provisions.xlsx

Here’s a rhetorical question about the two business owners and the certified public accountant: If several third-party administrators told the CPA the desired design is okay, why have the business owners not implemented the design with one of those TPAs?

Catchup 'happens'. One does NOT sign up for catchups. In your case khn, if someone who signed up for catchup terminates before deferring $18,000 in total, what do you do with the supposed catchup? unless you have a limit, if that person deferred $9,000 and elected an additional $3,000 for catch up, then the testing is for $12,000 and no catchup. After all these years I find it surprising that payrolls are still separating catchup because that is a testing issue, not a payroll issue.

I look at this one step at a time. When uncle dies, plan assets go either per a beneficiary designation *or* if none, per the terms of the plan. I would guess that the spouse (aunt) is the bene under the terms of the plan - so those assets go to her - whether she exercise control over them or not. Uncles will is irrelevant. Only a valid beneficiary designation or the terms of the plan govern. So, when aunt died, assets go per her bene designation (if any) or per the terms of the plan - and uncle, uncle's estate, and uncles trust have no bearing on aunt's distribution of her interest in the plan. Aunt's representative (estate) or others would be entitled to those benefits - absent some fact not disclosed. The court has NO JURISDICTION over the plan assets until paid, and cannot direct those assets to be paid to the trust, and whether it is a pass-through is really irrelevant..

I agree that it could be done, but I would recommend against it. A better approach is to exclude all HCEs from the safe harbor, and rely on the plan's individual-groups allocation formula for nonelective employer contributions to make an allocation to some or all HCEs, if desired. This is a little bit more complicated (but only a little bit) and it gives the employer much greater flexibility.

My experience of almost 40 years is that the check date is most often used. Otherwise, the administrative work is a mess.

This likely falls under what my partner calls the "Spandex Rule" - just because you can doesn't mean you should. A cash balance plan is no place for real estate, IMO, because of the volatility. On the one hand, you could lose a lot of money and have a huge underfunding problem. On the other hand, you could make a lot of money (which is what the owner usually hopes for) and end up with an excess asset problem. How happy would the owner be if he found out that his great real estate gain was going to be excise taxed 50% plus his normal rate of income tax. Put conservative investments in the cash balance plan and use another vehicle for the volatile investments. Ilene

Because the law says it does. There is a specific rule - IRC 402A(c)(4)(E) - that says amounts transferred from a pre-tax account to a Roth account will be "treated as a distribution" which is why you can do this. There is no rule that says you can net your RMD against your planned contributions for the year and avoid taking a distribution if you contribute less. "Seems to" is not the same thing as "is." The main thing you're missing is that qualified plans have to have their assets in a trust, under the control of a trustee. Under your method, the trust never has control of the amount, so it can't be considered to be plan assets, so it can't be used to satisfy the RMD requirements. Your chart also seems to be saying that the $10,000 will simply remain in the business account. The RMD doesn't get paid to the business, it gets paid to the participant. The business would have to pay it out to the participant in that case, and there might be questions why a payment directly from the business to an employee isn't being treated as wages. If the goal is just to avoid making a payment out of the main plan account, what you might be able to do is to open a checking account in the name of the plan. Then deposit the $15,000 to that account, transfer $5,000 of it to the main plan account, and pay out the remaining $10,000 to the owner. That seems unnecessarily complicated to me, but maybe it will accomplish your aims.

HCE determination (and lots of other things) is made under section 318 and is different than attribution for controlled groups (section 1563). Under 318, a parent is deemed to own a child's stock no matter the age of the child or the percentage ownership in the business. I love this summary from Lincoln. https://www.lfg.com/wcs-static/pdf/Attribution of Ownership in Retirement Plans - PDF.pdf

A big thank you to Lois and the entire IT team (is that just Lois?) for cleaning up the site after the major spam attack over the weekend. Every board was littered with messages. These boards are very useful to many people and it doesn't happen without great support. Thank you to the entire clean up crew.

It sounds like the K-1 is issued to the partner's corporation, NOT the partner. The K-1 is not plan comp. This is not an uncommon setup, but its also often misunderstood. Based on the scenario you lay out, his comp for plan purposes is his W-2 from the corporation, not the K-1 from the partnership to the corporation. If the income passes from one entity to another (not taxed as income from self-employment), why would it count as plan comp?

This is a pet peeve of mine, you can't "fail" the top heavy determination (aka top heavy test). You are just top heavy or not top heavy. In this case you're top heavy. Not a failure. The actual rule is that in a top heavy DC plan, each participant who is a non-key employee must receive an employer allocation equal to at least 3% of their compensation, or a percentage equal to the highest percentage allocated to any key employee if it is less than 3%. This allocation may impose a last day rule, meaning employees who are terminated before the end of the plan year do not need to receive the top heavy minimum. The rule was modified by SECURE 2.0 so that employees with less than 1 year of service or who have not attained age 21 do not need to receive the top heavy minimum contribution. This is effective starting for 2024 plan years. Since your plan is profit sharing only with a pro rata allocation, you shouldn't normally have any issues with the top heavy minimum, as each non-key employee would receive the same percentage of employer contributions as each key employee. However a couple of things to watch out for: If the plan excludes any compensation for allocation purposes (for example, pre-entry compensation), that definition of compensation may not be used for the top heavy minimum allocation, even if it is a 414(s) safe harbor definition. The plan must use full year (415) compensation. If the profit sharing allocation has a service condition, for example, the employee must complete 1000 hours of service in the current year to be eligible for a contribution, then an additional top heavy minimum might be needed for participants who were active on the last day but did not complete the 1000 hours. Employees who are not participants (have not met the plan's eligibility requirements) do not need to receive a contribution.

of course they could roll the proceeds to an IRA, avoid the 20% withholding, and then turn around and raid the IRA without mandatory withholding.

Amen!

Just to add my voice to this, we have strongly recommended to our clients that they do not do anything in relation to this until guidance comes.

Recognizing RatherBeGolfing’s observation that the truth might not be one-sided: If you help uncover the past, get the plan sponsor/administrator’s attorney to engage you to assist her. That way, what you communicate to the attorney can be shielded under evidence-law privileges for lawyer-client communications and attorney work product.

It's not truly disaggregation, where you would treat it as two separate plans as you might be used to with 410(b) and 401(a)(4). Rather, what the new law says is that employees who have not met age 21/1 year of service can be disregarded when determining if a DC plan has satisfied the top heavy minimum. So it doesn't matter if there are any otherwise excludable key employees, you just ignore all of the under 21/under 1 year employees when determining who is entitled to a top heavy minimum. Where it gets weird is with the safe harbor match. The IRS ruled (in rev. rul. 2004-13) that a plan which different eligibility for deferrals and safe harbor does not consist "solely" of deferrals and match meeting the safe harbor requirements, which is the rule to be treated as not top heavy under IRC 416(g)(4)(H). That clause wasn't affected by the new law. So presumably a plan with different eligibility for deferrals and match is still treated as top heavy, and subject to the top heavy minimum. The fact that they don't have to give the top heavy minimum to otherwise excludable employees doesn't change this, it just means that employees who are not otherwise excludable (over 21/1 year of service) will have to get the top heavy minimum. The top heavy minimum for these people could be satisfied by their safe harbor match contribution, or if they don't get any safe harbor (or enough safe harbor, because they didn't defer enough or not at all), then by an additional employer contribution.

Are you sure that's what the plan says? Read the exact wording in your plan document. I bet it actually says something to the effect that non-resident aliens with no U.S.-source income are excluded. If someone worked in the U.S. then they would not fall under that excludable employee classification, even if they are not a citizen and not a permanent resident.

Yes, it is that time of year again – the annual tax lament, to the tune of “Yesterday” by the Beatles. Remember, it is only when the final line is truly sung from the heart that one can appreciate the scope of anguish and angst that the artist is attempting to convey… Yesterday... Income tax was due, I had to pay... All the funds I tried to hide away... I don't believe, I'll eat 'till May. Suddenly... I'm not sure that I am fiscally... Ready for responsibility... Oh yesterday, came suddenly. Why, I Owed so much, I don't know, I couldn't say May be Forms were wrong, how I long, for yesterday. Yesterday... Seemed like prison time was on its way... Now I need a place to hide away... While keeping IRS at bay. Why, I Owed so much, I don't know, I couldn't say May be Forms were wrong, how I long, for yesterday. Yesterday... Taxes due, I filed come what may... Losing all deductions that's my way... Of giving IRS my pay. mm - mm - mm - mm - mm - mm - mm.

I would consider it a mistake (which violates exclusive benefit rule) and have the plan return the rollover to it's source. It shouldn't count for any purposes under the plan and should be corrected as soon as possible, in my opinion.

I agree - all those provisions that sound great for enhancing overall retirement plan coverage just make things more complicated and error-prone for the small and unsophisticated (from an HR perspective) employer that they serve as a detriment. Fewer employers will want to adopt these plans, fewer providers will want or be able to serve these plans, and administrative costs will increase, wiping out the short term tax credit savings. I've been in this business for nearly 40 years, have done both DC and DB in terms of administration, plan documents and compliance, and remember when DBPs were the complex animals no one wanted any more. Now, DBPs and CBPs look pretty simple compared to the modern and continually evolving 401(k) plan environment. Maybe all the heads of the states' with those new mandatory retirement plans met in a NYC pizza parlor and conspired with the Federal government to make 401(k) plans so damn complicated that no small employer would dare set one up and thereby drive all their employees into the mandatory state plans, just saying.

The participants have the right if it's in the document. The document either needs to be amended to remove the option or the employer needs to find new service providers.

"Portal." You mean portal. I hope.

Yes, it is that time of year again – the annual tax lament, to the tune of “Yesterday” by the Beatles. Remember, it is only when the final line is truly sung from the heart that one can appreciate the scope of anguish and angst that the artist is attempting to convey… Yesterday... Income tax was due, I had to pay... All the funds I tried to hide away... I don't believe, I'll eat 'till May. Suddenly... I'm not sure that I am fiscally... Ready for responsibility... Oh yesterday, came suddenly. Why, I Owed so much, I don't know, I couldn't say May be Forms were wrong, how I long, for yesterday. Yesterday... Seemed like prison time was on its way... Now I need a place to hide away... While keeping IRS at bay. Why, I Owed so much, I don't know, I couldn't say May be Forms were wrong, how I long, for yesterday. Yesterday... Taxes due, I filed come what may... Losing all deductions that's my way... Of giving IRS my pay. mm - mm - mm - mm - mm - mm - mm.

By all means, if you can borrow at 5.5% and get a guaranteed return of 10%, do it. There are no risks: - lose your job? No risk there. - default of your family member's business? No risk there. - mis-estimate of your 10% return assumption? No risk there. - loss of diversification in your investments? No risk there. - risk of family alienation? No risk there.

Thanks, @Effen -- that was a fun thing to wake up to on a Saturday. 😲 We did manage to stop them mid-stream, and have added a few more safeguards. Staying one step ahead is a challenge sometimes!

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.

Usually one of three ways: 1. Maintain both plans separately 2. Merge the plans 3. Go back in time

Verily, and with great haste, thou shalt consulteth thy plan's governing documents and discover therein the answers thou seekest. Should fortune smile upon thee, thou may findest that thy plan be graced with a determination letter, be it sealed by the hand of the wise ones who dwell within the halls of the Internal Revenue Service, granting reliance upon the terms found therein. In that happy moment, thou shalt knowest that thy plan's allowances of in-service distribution of rollover accounts shall never be said to fail to satisfy the requirements of section 401.

Compensation limit is based on the number in effect for when the plan year begins. 415 limit is based on the number in effect for when the plan year ends.

Peter, this compliment is long overdue. You are without question one of the most objective and fair minded observers I've encountered, as well as being a great source of information. If you decide to run for higher office, I'll vote for you!

Plan permanency is a "thing". It is best discussed with an employer BEFORE the plan is adopted. This takes away the first excuse an employers makes is "no one ever told me so". Is the IRS serious about it? Yes, it's in the regulations and the IRS Manual. See https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.401-1 and 1.401-1(b)(2) in particular. Also see the IRS Manual Section 7.12.1.13 Permanency Requirements/Reasons for Termination https://www.irs.gov/irm/part7/irm_07-012-001#idm139730249437392 . This latter link provides a lot of details on what is considered by the IRS in reviewing a plan's permanency, and you will find the answers to your questions and a lot more information. Is this something the IRS even checks? Yes. One way the IRS can learn about the issue is during a review of a company's tax returns. Seeing a deduction for a contribution in one year but not in subsequent years likely will trigger a question. Another way depends in part on whether to plan has filed a Form 5500-EZ, 5500-SF or 5500. The IRS has a formal Entity Control Check that it uses to keep track of filings made year over year. See page 24 of the IFILE User Guide https://www.efast.dol.gov/fip/pubs/EFAST2_IFILE_User_Guide.pdf . The IRS can track filings for the pairing of the employer's EIN and Plan Number. If there are too few or an abrupt end with no designated final filing, this may trigger an inquiry. Keep in mind that a discontinuance of contributions also can lead to a plan being considered terminated. Take a peek at IRM 7.12.1.14. If you convince a plan to delay terminating but the employer makes no contributions, you potentially are making the situation more complicated. Consider cutting your losses with these clients, and focusing your time and resources on educating employers before they sign up.

The minimum funding standard of sec. 430 applies regardless of the owner's salary. Whether a minimum required contribution exists for a given year for a given plan is a question for the plan's actuary.

A restorative payment is not a § 415(c) annual addition. It’s enough that there was a “reasonable risk of liability for breach of a fiduciary duty[.]” You can read the whole clause here: 26 C.F.R. § 1.415(c)-1(b)(2)(ii)(C) https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-26/chapter-I/subchapter-A/part-1/subject-group-ECFR686e4ad80b3ad70/section-1.415(c)-1#p-1.415(c)-1(b)(2)(ii)(C). I wrote Treasury a comment that led to this rule.

The plan asset regulations depend on whether the money is held in the trust, not whether it has been invested according to a participant's investment direction. If you have not violated the plan document, then you don't have a compliance problem. Note that the trustee repeatedly investing money in cash for a few days each payroll period will not comply with ERISA 404(c), so it may lead to employer liability.

Loans are not a protected benefit, and eliminating the availability of loans is not a prohibited cutback. 1.411(d)-4(d)(4)

Bill channeling his inner @Mike Preston 😀

Yeah, and he might also want six extra weeks of vacation and a $10,000 raise. He can't get those either.

FWIW, my interpretation in the absence of specific document language would be all compensation for hours on which overtime pay is included. If you are getting overtime pay on all hours over 40, then to me, all of those hours are overtime, and you would exclude it all, not just the extra 50%.