I know there was an allowance during Covid. A client is asking if they can witness the spouse's waiver via remote video.  My answer was going to be have the spouse show driver's license to confirm the person is the spouse.  

I'll check further on the rules for this.  But does this sound ok?

Follow - up - I checked the regulations on this.  No need to comment (unless you want to.) 

Thank you

View the full text of this job opportunity

View the full text of this job opportunity

View the full text of this job opportunity

One of our sponsors of a solo 401(k) & PS Plan reached out to me today asking about doing their profit sharing as Roth for the 2026 plan year. I know loosely that Roth employer is possible now under Secure 2.0, but we haven't looked into it much at our firm; it's not something we're planning on advising many employers to do given the added complexity & just isn't something we need to deal with much at our size. I have a few quick questions on how I should handle this:

• Is this something they are allowed to do for solo plan profit sharing contributions (assuming the needed amendment is made), or am I missing something?
• How should I handle talking about this to them, scope-of-practice wise? I can't attest too much to the tax implications of Roth employer, especially in a solo plan. As a TPA/recordkeeper, my gut tells me it's wise to define my scope as being able to tell them what kind of contributions they are allowed to make & how much, as well as processing them, however determining how Roth employer would affect plan compensation (especially as a solo plan), taxes, and any other implications are outside our scope and should be discussed with a CPA. Is this the right place to draw a line, or do I need to spend some time diving into the details of Roth employer & speak to the implications of it?

View the full text of this job opportunity

Sharing this link on this board to hopefully give Joseph better response

Yesterday’s proposed interpretation about selecting designated investment alternatives for an individual-account retirement plan that provides participant-directed investment seems to focus on a fiduciary’s decision-making about the investment merits of an investment alternative.

A subpart about complexity speaks to whether the fiduciary knows enough, or with an adviser can know enough, to evaluate, thoughtfully, an investment’s risks and potential rewards related to the complexities.

Some people think a fiduciary ought to consider whether a typical participant can understand the complexities and risks of a designated investment alternative. Even if a fiduciary has done a prudent-expert job in setting the menu, a participant decides whether and how to use an investment alternative.

Others think it’s unnecessary to consider whether a participant can understand a more complex investment alternative because a typical participant cannot understand even the simpler alternative, shares of a publicly available mutual fund regulated by Federal securities laws.

BenefitsLink neighbors, which is your view? And why?

An employee was permitted to defer in 2024 prior to her actual date of participation.  The trustee did not want to retroactively amend the plan to allow her to be a valid participant when her early deferrals were made, instead the early deferrals were refunded to her in 2026.  The document does not address the remedy for this situation.  I'm guessing the refunded deferrals would be included in her 2026 W-2 - would a 2026 1099-R need to issued to her for this refund?  All help is appreciated.   

View the full text of this job opportunity

View the full text of this job opportunity

View the full text of this job opportunity

An employer maintains a safe harbor 401(k) plan that provides for a safe harbor matching contribution of 100% of elective deferrals that do not exceed 4% of compensation.  Since the plan's inception several years ago, the employer has inadvertently provided a match of 100% of elective deferrals up to only 3% of compensation.  So, each year, anyone deferring more than 3% has missed out on a matching contribution on 1% of compensation.

EPCRS doesn't specifically address this failure, but it seems that the logical way to correct is to make a contribution of the 1% match, plus earnings, to all affected participants for all affected years.  In describing the allowable correction methods, Appendix A of Rev. Proc. 2021-30 provides that, if in addition to a failure to make a contribution, a 401(k) plan also failed the ADP test or ACP test, the correction methods under Appendix A cannot be used until after correction of the ADP or ACP test failures.

In this case, although this is intended to be a safe harbor plan, the employer failed to make the required safe harbor contribution for some participants.  So, technically, the plan was not operated as a safe harbor plan in those years.  Does this mean that the employer is required to run the ADP/ACP tests for all of those years, correct any failures of ADP/ACP, and then correct the failure to make the matching contribution?  It seems to me that by simply making the corrective contribution of the missing 1% match (plus earnings) to all affected participants, the plan will be restored to safe harbor status for all years, making the ADP/ACP tests inapplicable, so it shouldn't be necessary to run the ADP/ACP tests for all affected years.

I would appreciate all input!

View the full text of this job opportunity

Good Morning,

This is a long shot I know But I am looking for the version of the E*TRADE Prototype Standardized PSP, BPD and AA. This is a group plan not the solo(k). I would like the plan in effect in 2013.  Before I write to the IRS, I am hoping someone has one lying around. 

E-TRADE CLEARING LLC INC RANCHO CORDOVA, CA 312D4162701-004 STANDARDIZED PROFIT SHARING/CODA M288284 

View the full text of this job opportunity

Hello all, I have a scenario caused by an employer changing from T Rowe Price to Fidelity in the midst of QDRO submissions. The Stipulated Judgment of Dissolution specifies a Valuation date of 10/23/20 and my account contained only pretax contributions on that date. Fidelity won’t accept any Valuation date prior to 12/29/2023 since that’s when their record keeping started. My first Roth contribution date was 2/24/23 with TRP and then an in plan Roth conversion was completed prior to Fidelity takeover 12/29/23. All payroll contributions since 2/24/23 have been Roth. Fidelty’s QDRO guidance allows for USE of a valuation date prior to 12/29/23 but states adjustment to the award should occur utilizing TRP statement. They state the valuation date must be 12/29/23 or the QDRO won’t be qualified.
A motion to vacate the QDRO was filed in February 2024 with due diligence after the judge signed the invalid QDRO. The award was not adjusted for the valuation date Fidelity required. The motion to vacate STILL hasn’t been heard. This resulted in the AP account segregation on 3/4/24. All Roth contributions I made including the in plan Roth conversion were treated as marital property resulting in a Roth tax cost basis being assigned to my Ex when he should have NONE. Fidelity backed out all Roth from his award as of the 12/29/23 valuation date and ignored my prior non-marital Roth contributions that started 2 years post dissolution and 18 months after the 10/23/20 stipulation of Valuation date.

How would the calculation work to “adjust” his flat award amount (no gains/losses)? Does he just keep the Roth tax cost basis, which is a loss to me? Are we to calculate the income tax savings he received as a dollar amount and then subtract that from his award? Would any individual IRS amendment be necessary for either party?

Fidelity’s valuation date mess suggests the state court violate 2 stipulated orders, one stating valuation date and another stating the flat dollar amount of his award. 
I’m doubtful that Fidelity would even get involved due to the court’s extended delay.

After 5 QDRO attempts, all being incorrect, the judge has even imposed judgement interest on the total award amount and atty fee reimbursement for my objections! Wouldn’t this be an ERISA violation as well since a VALID QDRO IS REQUIRED for the award to be made? another motion to vacate was filed for that as well.

Thanks in advance for any thoughts on this matter!

Hi, I am going to start studying to take the EA 2F exam in the fall and the other 2 after that. Since there are so many study materials to choose from, what are some books, study guides, or other material anyone who has taken each exam recently, used to study and worked well for them? 

“Our goal is to deliver on President Trump’s promise for a new golden age by fostering a retirement system that allows more Americans to retire with dignity,” said U.S. Secretary of Labor Lori Chavez-DeRemer. “This proposed rule will show how plans can consider products that better reflect the investment landscape as it exists today. This greater diversity will drive innovation and result in a major win for American workers, retirees, and their families.”

 https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/ebsa/ebsa20260330

 What I do not understand is, if you make private equity funds available to the public, that would make the private equity funds publicly traded.  Wouldn’t that mean we need all of the protections that public investors receive through SEC filings, etc.?  Imagine the disclosures needed for liquidity restrictions.  I can see the place for this in a pooled, trustee directed plan (especially defined benefit), but not a participant directed one.

 I don’t get it.

Suppose you have a small defined benefit Pension Plan and the 100% shareholder is now 73 and needs to take his first RMD on April 1, 2026. It is our understanding that if the RMD is calculated and based on a 20 year certain annuity (for example), he can later take the balance of his benefits as a lump sum distribution if he actually retires. However, if the RMDs (prior to actual retirement) were calculated and based on a single life annuity, he is prevented from taking the remainder of his benefits as a lump sum when he retires. Instead, he is forced into taking the remainder of his benefits under the plan as a single life annuity.

Does anyone agree or disagree with this?

Suppose we started calculating his RMD basing it on a 15 year term certain annuity. Is there any problem using only 15 years? Generally, most plan sponsors and participant's want the smallest RMD possible but not in this case. Then presumably when he retires in a few years or so, he can take the balance of his vested benefits as a lump sum and then roll over to an IRA.

Thanks.