I was divorced over 25 years ago, for a relatively small pension ($350) month I was suppose to collect 40% at age 65. QDRO was originally rejected and never corrected, then divorce was finalized.

Its not worth hiring an attorney - the plan administrator has attempted to contact my ex-spouse with no response by her.

What/who determines how long I have to wait to receive my portion? 

I have a plan with a 3% non elective Safe Harbor.  TPA is saying that it is permissible for the sponsor to deposit the 3% on a payroll by payroll basis - something i haven't seen and something that is not notated in the document. TPA is also saying that since it is funded payroll by payroll there is no "true-up". Usually, 3% non electives are contributed at end of year.  What am I missing and has anyone else experienced this?

Can a non-electing church plan define spouse to only include an opposite sex spouse? I saw an older post on this topic. My research keeps taking me down different roads.

A physician group merged some years ago and because they worked with different investment advisors, the plan investment options provided for individual brokerage accounts (since accounts from other plans merged in) along with a major 401(k) record keeping product.  As years passed, and the group became very large the decision was made to require all accounts to be under one record keeping umbrella.  This was to facilitate one payroll file feed to the record keeper, elimination of lots of separate payments to brokage accounts,  reconciling all these accounts vs. consolidated reporting, etc.  

This record keeper provides for a Schwab brokerage account option so almost all brokerage accounts (all existing Schwab) were able to transfer in kind very smoothly.  However, there is one brokerage account with a brokerage firm that cannot transfer in-kind to a Schwab account as this brokerage firm be a paid advisor on an account that is not custodied with them.  Instead the account would need to be liquidated and wired to Schwab.  The physician involved is balking perhaps with the backing of the advisor.  The comment was made regarding potential losses on some interest bearing securities that come due in the next year or two.

We are wondering what options the Trustees of the plan (a group of the owners) have.  I believe investment options/features are not a protected benefit under 411(d).  I suppose they could accommodate this one remaining account in some way - move all funds but those interest bearing securities until they mature.  Or as Trustees, they could force the account to be liquidated and transferred.  They would not want to run afoul of any potential fiduciary issues.

Primarily I want to confirm that investment options under a plan such as wide-open-use-any-custodian-you-want brokerage account option is not a protected benefit.

Thank you

Tom

When transferring an account between non-governmental 457(b) plans the recipient plan must treat the elections made under the transferor plan as if made under the recipient plan.  What if the election made under the transferor plan includes a method of distribution that is not offered under the recipient plan?  Must the recipient plan recognize that method of distribution?

Thanks for any and all insight. 

I think I have read the instructions to the 5500 so many times that I have talked myself into circles.  I know how to file traditional corporate type MEPs with the new Schedule MEP, my questions is regarding PEPs and PEO Type Plans with DFEs that are not a DC Group of Plans (GoPs) filing on DCG.

The PEPs and "open" MEP type arrangements have a DFE, but on Part 1(A) of the 5500 - is the DFE box checked for all group type arrangements, Code D?  True for PEPs and GoPs alike? I could not tell if PEPs also filed using the DFE box with Code D from the instructions.

I think that the 5500 instructions collectively refer to these as "defined contribution groups" (in my head that is a GoP filed on DCG).

So PEPs and PEO type MEPs would also complete Schedule D (Part I & III) plus Schedule MEP - is that correct?

If there is anything I am missing, just let me know. TYIA!

Is there a legal deadline by which employer contributions (such as matching contributions) must be credited to a participant's account under a nonqualified plan governed by 409A?

One template I've seen provides a deadline for crediting of matching contributions of "as soon as practicable following the last day of the Plan Year to which the Matching Contribution relates and in no event later than the March 15 immediately following the Plan Year." Is March 15 just a random, reasonable date, or is it somehow tied to the short-term deferral rule (probably totally off base there)?

Trying to understand the legal limits involved here. Thank you!

This is actually hypothetical, although it is easy to see how it could apply in real life.

Suppose you have employer A, who establishes a PS (no 401(k) aspect) plan. A couple of years later, A purchases part ownership in employer B. No CG/ASG, but B signs on as a participating employer in A's plan, creating a MEP under the Employer A's document.

Employee X, who has previously satisfied the 1 YOS eligibility for Employer A, in a given year transfers to employer B. Both plans have a 1000 hr/last day allocation requirement. As per the terms of the document, all service with any and all participating employers is counted. Compensation is determined separately for each employer. 415 is calculated jointly.

So, this employee X works 400 hours with A, (earning $8,000) then transfers to B and works 700 hours (earning $10,000) and is still employed on 12/31. Let's further "simplify" this by postulating that both employers make a 10% PS contribution for the year.

Employee X should receive an allocation of $1,000 in B's plan, as compensation is calculated separately for each participating employer. Is employee X eligible for any allocation in A's plan? Since service for each employer is counted, there's no severance/separation from employment, it would seem that an allocation of $800 would be appropriate, but it "feels" strange. 

Any thoughts? This is for discussion only - not a real situation, so please don't spend a lot of time!

Generally we use W2 Compensation (Box 5 of the W2) as the definition for Compensation in our Plans.  We have a client that wants to use Gross Compensation though for the Safe Harbor Match.

I just wanted to make sure it was allowed, so we knew how to proceed.

Thanks in advance!

We handle 2 plans for a dentist who is a PC; sold the assets of the practice, employees received W-2 for period 1/1 to 2/28 2024.

I am suggesting $0 profit sharing, he knows he has to do a 3% safe harbor on the employees' W-2 1/1-2/28/2024

Question is, what comp do we use to calculate the cash balance plan  (assuming the liabilities are greater the the assets)?

Obviously, if assets greater, no contribution.

I don't see how plan(s) can pass 401(a)(4) or 401(a)(26), possobly w/o a contribution.

The owner will continue the plan as a PC, but I believe his payout will be 1099 which will be funneled to PC and become PC income for plan purpose.

It's my understanding that profit sharing is limited to 25% of your plan compensation. Is this limit for specifically profit sharing, or all employer contributions? Specifically, does safe harbor count towards that limit? I have a client who has a solo K plan and made about $100,000 and maxed out deferral. Her document is a 4% Safe Harbor NE. Can she contribute 4% as a safe harbor contribution and then 25% as profit sharing, or can she only do 21% profit sharing to hit a limit of 25% comp as employer contributions?

Had a plan where they could not produce census data for 2023 due to a change in payroll systems. Therefore we were not able to do the SSA.  I see the penalties are now "bankrupt an organization" stupid.  Anyone have a real world experience?  I can see that you can ask for a waiver if the lateness is for reasonable cause.  It's a larger plan so this is a good sized potential penalty we are talking about.  Can you claim the waiver in advance or do you have to wait for the penalty to be assessed and then ask for a waiver?  Curious if anyone has a real world experience...  I assume since there is no late filer program they would be pretty accomodating.

https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/penalties-related-to-the-filing-of-forms-8955-ssa

Also wondering if they even send out a penalty when you file late. Hard to imagine getting a $30,000 fine for filing this late.  I could see if it was never filed, etc. Anyway look forward to hearing from you!

Client already has automatic contribution arrangement ACA - not any safe harbor version.  The plan has no employer contribution (and is not top-heavy.)  The plan has many high paid employees and failed ADP testing.  They want to consider increasing the ACA from 3% to 6%.  I assume they can do thi at any point in the year?  I believe this can/should only apply to newly eligible employees as current eligible employees either were set at 3% ACA or elected something different. EVen if they are able to increase the 3% defaulted employees to 6% I don't think they'd want to do that.

Thank you,

Tom

Surviving spouse is entitled to 50% QPSA or 75% QOSA.  He wants to maximize the benefits from this source, because the remaining benefits are going to be split.  Is the 75% QOSA more valuable, or am I missing something?  Thank you.

We have a terminated plan that had a rollover go from the 401(k) to a traditional IRA.  Some of this money was pretax, some was Roth.  The FA (who did this incorrectly) was told she had to roll the entire balance back to the plan, open a Roth IRA and try again. 

The brokerage firm is stating that now that the participant is age 73, she must take her RMD first.  One issue is that they are using all $$ to determine even though some is Roth because frankly, to them it is.  My question is does the participant need to take an RMD from the 401(k) as well before it's rolled back out to the correct IRA(s)?  The original occurred in 2024 so both accounts have 12/31/2024 balances.   

Thanks!

Plan administrator of MEP became aware of issues with one participating employer (use of incorrect compensation, late deferrals, incorrect calculation of deferrals and possible contributions by ineligible employees).  Until they could confirm participant balances were correct, plan administrator placed a hold on distributions for this participating employer only (not the MEP as a whole).  The hold will be in place until the plan administrator completes its investigation and determines whether a corrective action (VCP) is necessary.  Is a blackout notice required?  Obviously the ability to receive distributions is affected, but it is not the result of an administrative change (i.e., change in investment provider or recordkeeper).  The plan administrator does not want to distribute a participant account and later find out that the account was overstated.  Thoughts?

We are a law firm offering our own nonstandardized pre-approved plans. We have until now used a customized database built by an internal IT employee to keep track of plans and plan information (plan name, plan nos., EINs, plan type, some plan features, whether we're responsible for plan document, trustee, third-party providers, etc.). Our IT employee is retiring and we're looking at other options. Does anyone have suggestions for useable databases they use for this purpose? The most important feature is being able to identify which plans we're responsible to restate during the next pre-approved adoption cycle. 

Thanks in advance for any suggestions or ideas.

Just curious, a client is looking to change who the Plan Administrator is for their 401(k) Plan (basically just who is able to sign the Form 5500).  Is there anything specific that we need to do in order to make that change (it's not a trustee, so I didn't think we needed a Plan Amendment).

Thanks in advance!

Client has a 125 plan and contributions are made to an HSA (generous contributions by company).  Client wishes to set up a separate track for medical benefits for all new employees hired after a certain date.  Legacy employees continue to get the same favorable benefits.  New employees receive an ACA compliant offer (perhaps with a premium only plan separate 125 plan).  Thus, the new employees would not be ineligible to participate in the 125 plan.

Any issues with this?

Thank you.

Hypothetical question:

Combo plan DC/DB, top heavy

Only DB provides top heavy

What is the percentage?