A retirement plan, Calendar Year Plan Year with 2/20 Vesting,  defines its "Normal Retirement Age" as the later of age 65 and 5 Years of Plan Participation, and, hired the following Eligible Employee:

Hire 3/1/2020

Birth 4/1/1957 (age 62, 11 mos at hire)

Eligible 6/1/2020

NRA based on the above definition is 1/1/2025 (1st day of plan year of 5th anniversary of participation)

Assuming works 1000+ hours in every year and is actively employed:

Q 1: this employee would not be 100% vested on his 65th birthday (4/1/2022) because he has not yet satisfied the definition of Normal Retirement Age, correct?

Q 2: on 12/31/2024 this employee is 80% vested; on 1/1/2025, this employee's vesting would be accelerated to 100% Vesting upon reaching Normal Retirement Age, correct?

Thank you!

I'm just discovering the "signature" feature in my pdf software (I use Kofax f/k/a Nuance).  I am curious to know if we can tell clients it is ok to sign plan documents using this feature.  From my brief readings what I am finding is that it is actually much more secure than a regular ink signature because the signature itself is able to tied back directly to the signers own credentials (some crazy encryption-like key).

I'm curious to know if anyone has ever researched this or has found an article about its use in legal documents, whether the IRS will accept it, etc.

So, small client has benefits through a large, national PEO.  Things are not going well for the company and it is facing bankruptcy.  Unclear at present if that will be a Chapter 7 or Chapter 11 and whether some employees will remain on staff to wind things down for a short period, etc. but likely to involve terminating most employees in a few days.  Client asked PEO about COBRA in the event of bankruptcy and was told that "PEO is willing to offer COBRA for a company in bankruptcy if the fees are all paid upfront.  Fees would be $500 per employee as a set up fee (presumably for all current employees whether or not they elect COBRA) and then $75 per month per employee.  All amounts to be paid up front with any unused amounts returned if someone doesn't sign up for COBRA (or takes less than 18 months).  Again, all of this appears to be by way of COBRA / administration fees just to get to point of employee being able to pay regular COBRA premiums.

Does this make sense.  I suppose at one level it might be generous if we assume some complete liquidation and this envisions allowing employees to participate in the PEO's multiple employer plan even though client no longer exists and no longer participates in the group health plan.  On the other hand, it seems strange to me for the PEO to be saying it is "willing" to permit COBRA coverage and then to assess some employer administration fees to make that happen.  What if they are trying to reorganize and a handful of employees stay on to help and the company continues the group health plan participation but just for those few employees.  Wouldn't the terminated employees have a legal right to participate in COBRA?

Three partners get together and form a business.  They start meeting and discussing the business in April 2020, they start working on organizing the business, writing a business plan, researching customers and suppliers, etc in June 2020.  In September 2020 they engage an attorney to create an operating agreement and form an LLC, which is registered with the state in November 2020.   In November and December 2020 they interview and hire employees to start working in January.  They "officially" begin operations in January 2021. 

For purposes of plan eligibility, what is the partners' date of hire?   Under DOL regs it is typically the date an employee first performs an hour of service for the employer for which the employee is entitle to payment.   The partners clearly started working on this in April of 2020, they clearly expect to earn a profit, but they didn't have a formal employer entity until November.   

A.  April 2020
B.  June 2020
C.  November 2020
D.  January 2021
E.  Other________________________

Thanks. 

I recently took over the admin of a pooled profit sharing only plan.  And as it seems with every plan I start to work on, there's an issue.  It looks like once a participant terminates, they stop sharing in the gain/loss.  For an example, there's a term whose balance hasn't changed since the PYE 6/30/2014.  I looked through the doc (it's the lovely Datair IDP) and I couldn't find any language confirming either right or wrong.

If the plan sponsor is consistent, is it ok to NOT allocate earnings to terms with balances?

Thanks!    

A participant submitted a CARES distribution request in November 2020. The request was valid and in good order, however the recordkeeper did not process it. The recordkeeper is a large national bundled provider.  The plan sponsor was upset and has been in an argument with the recordkeeper since it was not processed timely. The solution from the recordkeeper is to process the CRD today and issue a 2020 1099R and call it a CRD. The recordkeeper will file a VCP submission asking the IRS to approve a 2021 distribution based a procedure error since the paperwork was received in good order and the recordkeeper failed to process it. Apparently, this happened with multiple plan sponsors because the recordkeeper is filing a VCP submission of behalf of multiple plan sponsors. (note - the participant does not qualify for any other type of in-service distribution).

Does the IRS have authority to approve a VCP submission to treat a 2021 distribution as a CRD due to the recordkeepers error?

Thank you

We're doing testing on a takeover plan and found an issue - comp is not being capped for match.  So, for their match formula of 50% of 6% deferrals, someone deferring $26k with $500k comp got a match of $15k rather than $8550.  (We're right, right?  That the comp must be limited, regardless of whether they're matching per payroll or annually?)

I believe the correction is to forfeit the excess match, do you agree? (Also, is there an actual term used for this excess match?)  Which amount goes into the ACP test, $15k or $8550?

Now, to further complicate, this has been going on since 2015.  (Fwiw, the higher figures' testing has always passed all testing - other than whatever test would have caught the problem.)  This is such a large payroll, it would cost way too much to retro-amend the doc for a larger match.  What would be the appropriate correction path to follow here?

I appreciate any advice or suggestions so much, thank you!

Having a discussion (nicely put) that the following DC plan needs a fidelity bond - at least I insist on it:

Owner (100%), spouse and 2 adult children.

Am I wrong? On the top of your head, do you have a cite for it?

Thank you

A company started a safe harbor 401k for 2020.  They and their payroll provider misunderstood how the safe harbor match worked....They over-matched a participant who only deferred 1% - they gave him 4% so his match was way  more than his deferrals.   Should this be moved to the forfeiture account since it wasn't supposed to ever be given to this participant or can it be returned to the employer.  I have looked at their adoption agreement and don't really see a clear answer.   Thanks for any insights.

Today is the first day of the rest of your life.  It's also the first day after my retirement.  After 43 years of being an actuary, I'm moving on to other things.  It has been a wonderful profession. 

Thanks to Dave Baker and BenefitsLink, and all the contributors here, for helping.   My brain will not atrophy, at least not immediately; I'll be glad to help anyone who needs anything.

Rigby out.

My Ex-Wife and I have mostly identical QDRO documents for each of our pensions.

How can I go about finding out the expected value once I start receiving payments from her pension and also how do I find out if a lump sum distribution option is available.

Will her plan administrator supply that information to me?

Hi

Having a brain freeze as I have not had a low pay out for quite sometime.

Is the relative value disclosure required for a lump sum under 5k (over 1k) and if yes, do I need to show the monthly benefit equivalences?

Thank you

Participant A retired from Company X nearly 10 years ago. He participated in X's defined benefit plan (from which he is currently receiving a pension under a joint and 100% survivor annuity) and 401(k) plan. The pension is equal to $36,000 per year, payable in monthly installments. During 2020, Participant A also received distributions of his remaining account under X's 401(k) plan (which had both Roth and non-Roth portions), rolled over the vast majority of it into traditional and Roth IRAs and later received distributions of the balance from both IRAs. During 2020, A was also laid off by Company G, which is unrelated to Company X. A would like to treat the portion of the 401(k) plan distribution which was not rolled over but otherwise subject to tax as well as the taxable portion of the traditional IRA distribution as a Coronavirus-related distribution and pay the resulting tax over the next 3 years. A would like the pension amount received to be subject to the regular tax rules, which would subject the entire $36,000 to tax during 2020 (otherwise, A would be subject to tax on the pension during 2020 on $12,000, but would have to pay tax on $48,000 ($36,000 + $12,000) in each of 2021 and 2022).

However, "If more than one distribution was made during the year, you must treat all distributions for that year the same way." Form 8915-E Instructions, page 1; IRS Notice 2020-50, Section 1. IRS Notice 2020-50, Section 4.B. ("All coronavirus-related distributions received in a taxable year must be treated consistently (either all distributions must be included in income over a 3-year period or all distributions must be included in income in the current year)."

Seemingly inconsistent with the preceding paragraph are the following: Instructions to Form 8915-E, page 2, "Types of Qualified 2020 Disaster Distributions," "Coronavirus-related Distributions," "you can generally designate any distribution (including periodic payments and required minimum distributions) from an eligible retirement plan as a coronavirus-related distribution, regardless of why the distribution was made," provided that the aggregated distributions so designated do not exceed $100,000.  Coronavirus-related distributions are permitted without regard to your need;" IRS Notice 2020-50, Section 1.C ("In general, a qualified individual is permitted to designate a distribution described in the preceding paragraph as a coronavirus-related distribution.")

Reviewing the foregoing, I am inclined to conclude that the requirement of consistency referenced in the second paragraph applies solely to determination of whether all Coronavirus-related distributions (as designated by the individual) are taxed ratably over 3-years or taxed in full in the year of distribution. Therefore, A would be permitted to designate only the portion of the 401(k) account that would have been taxable but was not rolled over as well as the taxable IRA distributions as coronavirus-related distributions and not the periodic payments A was receiving from the defined benefit plan. Does anyone have a contrary position on this?

We've administered this non-safe harbor 401k plan for years, and now they are moving to a new asset platform that insist on using their plan document, to which we grudgingly complied.  One of the provisions they say they need to have is a $500 minimum on in-service distributions and hardships... but there wasn't a minimum in the plan before.  That sounds like a cutback in available benefits to me.  Am I reading too far into this?

or maybe it is not an opinion as often times someone here knows something to be bonafide fact. at any rate this plan has last day and 1000 hour for PS allocation. not passing coverage so it says to add those still employed but under 1000 first, then to those with "greatest amount of service during the Plan Year before terminating" and similarly situated employees will be treated the same. so need to add one EE out of those terminated to pass coverage. there are two options

terminated employee A - terminated 09/28/2020 with 200 hours

terminated employee B - terminated 9/15/2020 with 480 hours

which employee from above has the "greatest amount of service"? I could make an argument for A, B or for both being "similarly situated" since service conditions are based on both time and hours. 

thoughts?

Suppose an employer has been filing several 5500 forms - one for each plan - Dental, Disability, whatever. Has not been filing for certain plans due to less than 100 participants - say, Vision plan has only 40 participants.

Now they institute a "wrap" plan. Are they required to include the Vision participants, or can they still exclude them? Do they have the option to include or not include, and still file multiple 5500 forms, or must it be one form? I'd assume they want to file just one form, and must all sub-plans then be included?

Hi,

The client's plan assets were transferred over to the new recordkeeper back in August 2019. For a couple of participants, their money went into the money market account instead of the same funds it was in under the previous recordkeeper.

The person setting up the accounts failed to set up the funds properly when setting up these employees with the new recordkeeper.

These participants are now just realizing 18 months later that their money wasn't invested the way they thought it was.

My question is...how much responsibility do we as the TPA have in so far as making the accounts good earnings-wise? Should not some of that responsibility fall on the participants for not checking for 18 months to make sure their money was invested the way it needed to be?

Thank you!

I have a situation where a company had a 401k plan (less than 5 years ago), terminated the 401k Plan, entered into a PEO-style MEP for a couple years, decided they did not like it and decided to leave the MEP to start up a brand new 401(k) plan.  The owners of the company transferred all their money into the MEP years ago (I'm not certain all the employees did as the original plan termination was likely a distributable event).  All of the employees rolled their balance from the MEP into the new 401k plan (greater than 60% are owner assets).  I'm currently classifying the rollovers into the new 401k plan as Related Rollovers.  The issue I'm grappling with is whether or not the plan is Top Heavy on day one of the new 401k plan.  I'm looking for advice as to how I should treat this.  If I'm leaving out any pertinent details, please let me know.  Thanks in advance!

Assume we want to aggregate two SH 401(k) plans. Both of them provide a matching formula. Plan A's match formula is 100% of first 3% deferred and 50% of the next 2% deferred. Plan B's match formula is 100% of first 3% deferred and 60% of the next 2% deferred. 

SH matching contributions are made to NHCE only. 

Could these plans be aggregated for 410(b) testing? 

I read the Regs as saying yes, because there are no HCE that are getting a SH match. What bothers me is that some NHCE are getting a better match than other NHCE. What is the issue here?

I have a situation where a company had a 401k plan (less than 5 years ago), terminated the 401k Plan, entered into a PEO-style MEP for a couple years, decided they did not like it and decided to leave the MEP to start up a brand new 401(k) plan.  The owners of the company transferred all their money into the MEP years ago (I'm not certain all the employees did as the original plan termination was likely a distributable event).  All of the employees rolled their balance from the MEP into the new 401k plan (greater than 60% are owner assets).  I'm currently classifying the rollovers into the new 401k plan as Related Rollovers.  The issue I'm grappling with is whether or not the plan is Top Heavy on day one of the new 401k plan.  I'm looking for advice as to how I should treat this.  If I'm leaving out any pertinent details, please let me know.  Thanks in advance!