They seem to think this Bill has a chance to pass the Senate as well.

A couple of the provisions are:

One of the differences between the House and Senate bills is when participants will be required to begin taking distributions from their retirement plans. The House bill increases the required minimum distribution age to 72 from 70 ½, while the Senate bill makes no change.

(I think I liked last year's Bill better which would have ignored min distr if total balance was less than 50,000. the last time they disagreed we ended up with top paid group election because one group wanted HCEs based on anyone with comp > XXX while the other group simply wanted top 10% highly paid or something like that as I recall so they compromised)

Businesses with long-term, part-time workers must also allow them to become eligible for retirement benefits.

(It would be interesting to see how it is determined who is 'long term part time and who is short term part time.)

I'm working with an EACA calendar year Plan. They'd like to do an re-enrollment on June 1st to increase anyone under 4% up to a 4% deferral rate. Plus also turning on deferral acceleration to auto increase each June 1st by 1% up to 6%.

Are there any Annual Notice issues since this would preclude us from making this amendment mid-year? We plan on providing a Plan amendment notice to everyone and send out multiple communication pieces.

Thanks for your help.

We have a participant in a 401(k) plan that took a plan loan in 2017 and two (2) hardship distributions two months apart in 2018.

He is repaying the loan, and now wants another hardship distribution, which he does not qualify for.

The total sum taken from his account is over $200,000. Question, if the plan were to be audited, would not the IRS consider this a breach of fiduciary duty to have signed off on these distributions?

We're having a little trouble trying to figure this out. We have 3 separate plans for 3 different companies that are considered a controlled group. All plans have exactly the same provisions (in short they all fund a 3% safe harbor and 50% up to 6% match).

We just found out they had a 4th company that they never told us about. The 4th company has it's own plan as well. However it has different benefits. The plan has 183 employees 180 are NHCEs 3 are HCEs. 

Let's just say the 3 other plans have 1300 participants combined 300 are HCEs and 1000 are non-hces.

How do we determine what testing has to pass in order for this 4th company to stand on it's own with different benefits?

When the plan document election requires a $500 minimum on distributions, both termination & in-service would a recurring distribution of an amount less than $500, e.g. $150/mo be considered to violate that and create an operational violation?

Question concerning a controlled group with matches which vary by division.  I know ACP is required but assume there must be more testing (benefits rights and features?).  What would the testing be which must be performed in addition to ACP?

Thanks!

Patricia

An employee died, had six children on the plan. Employee was divorced. Four different moms. We are not aware of any court orders. We provide subsidized COBRA for 24 months. Questions: Who do we offer COBRA to and and at what rate - do we offer at the subsidized employee + child(ren) rate (and net out the employee only rate) to each mom?

A company with an existing 401(k) plan is preparing to create a wholly owned subsidiary.  The subsidiary doesn't yet exist.

The company wishes to create a separate 401(k) plan for the subsidiary. 

In the first year the subsidiary is being set up, it may consist of HCEs only.  In time they will have rank-and-file employees and combined plan testing should be fine.  The first year is my concern.

If the subsidiary and its plan do not currently exist, can we take advantage of the transition rule in the first year of the new plan?

401(k) client has an issue with its welfare benefits and is asking me to point them in the right direction.  I don't do welfare benefits at all so I figured id see with you guys if this sounds like "standard practice".  I have a feeling there is fault on more than one party here, but it sounds like everyone involved are just pointing fingers at others.

Company offers several different welfare options in addition to health insurance, such as FSA, dental, short term disability , etc.

Starting in mid 2018 (at least) through March 2019, some payroll deductions were never made.  For example, one participant did not have their dental and FSA deducted from their paycheck starting in October 2018.  It was discovered in March of 2019.  Dental benefits were paid for and participant was credited with the elected FSA amount, so I assume that those were paid with company assets since payments exceed deductions.    

The proposed solution is to just double up deductions each payroll starting in April 2019 until the participants have "paid" for the benefits they were credited with.  Is this a common solution when you are talking about 5-6 months of deductions spread over more than one plan year?  It sounds "fair" that the participants should pay for the benefits they received, but the participants also have a higher taxable income in 2018 than they should had everything been done right. 

Any input would be appreciated.

Thanks.

Has anyone run into a situation where a client's accountant demands that a 100% owner of a company be allowed to take a distribution of moneys because the client fired himself? They also revealed that the owner is in dire financial straights. This is a SH plan with no hardships allowed. I'm calling BS, and told them to hire an attorney to write us a letter telling us that the termination would allow the owner to take a distribution of plan money.

They could also terminate the plan.

Is there another way I should be thinking about this?

Have a 3 participant DB that terminated and has excess assets (about $40k).

Our document indicates that the excess can be allocated in any non-discriminatory manner.

In this case it is a husband and wife plan with one younger employee. The husband and wife are each 70.

The wife has participated for over 10 years but has had very small accruals (I think 1% of pay for the past 10 years).

The business owner would like to be able to allocate most of the excess to his wife. 

Would there be any problem with attempting to do that and using accrued to date for 401(a)4?

I would think accrued to date would have the effect of spreading out the excess as though it were additional accrued benefits over all the past years. Perhaps making it so it would have the effect of her earning 2% of pay rather than 1%.

Thanks.    

A 401(k) Safe Harbor Non-Elective, with New Comparability PS has different eligibility for the 401(k)/Safe Harbor portion and the PS portion. If someone enters the Plan mid- Plan Year for PS purposes, do I use full year compensation or PS Participation Date compensation for (a)(4) testing purposes?

401(k) plan was terminated in 2018. Due to a recordkeeping error, assets were incorrectly distributed to Employee A instead of Employee B.  Plan sponsor needs to correct the overpayment to Employee A and the incorrect distribution (i.e. underpayment) to Employee B.  

How is this done if the 401(k) plan and trust have been terminated?  They can recover the overpayment from Employee A, but how is it formally returned to the plan and distributed to Employee B if the plan has been terminated? Do they need to rescind the termination?  

Employer currently has a Model 5305-SEP and wants to add a CB plan - they cannot use a 5305-SEP with a CB plan, so they will need to establish a new SEP. 

Once they are able to find a provider to prepare the new SEP, will the new SEP be an amendment to the original 5305-SEP or a brand new employer plan? 

If it is a new employer plan, will the current participants in the Model 5305-SEP be allowed to roll their money into the new employer SEP plan?

We have an existing SEP (20 HCEs and 1 NHCEs) with 25% employer contribution each year for each participant.  Employer wants to add a Cash Balance plan but does not want to leave the SEP arrangement and go with a PS/401(k) plan.  So we will have a SEP (not a 5305-SEP) with each participant continuing to receive 25% each year and then certain of the HCEs receiving some amount of allocation/funding into the CB plan.  The NHCE will be allocated whatever is necessary.

Is this a viable arrangement?  What is the tax deduction limits for a set up like this?  Can we allocate 25% in the SEP and also what is necessary in the CB and not exceed the tax deduction limits?

Are we allowed to consider what is allocated in the SEP for the NHCE when determining what the NHCE must receive in the CB plan just like we normally do when we have a PS/401(k) arrangement alongside a CB plan?

A terminated participant has a vested account balance of less than $1,000.

Per the terms of the plan will make a mandatory distribution of account balances that are $1,000 or less. The distribution will be made as soon as administratively feasible.

The vested amount is >$200, must the participant sign an election form?

Cross-posting from 457 plans:

Quick question on reporting 457(f) distributions. Say you have a 457(f) plan that vests in a fixed amount (say $500,000) in one year but is paid in installments (say 5 years at $100,000 starting the year after vesting).

Setting aside for the moment the issue of present value, the employer would report all $500,000 as taxable wages on a W-2 in the first year. Later distributions would be subject to tax under section 72, which would require no further taxation upon distribution.

In the installment years, do the $100,000 non-taxable distributions get reported anywhere?

Section 4.72.19.27 of the IRM says the following, but it's not clear what the employer reporting requirements are (if any):

For any amounts previously taxed, but not distributed from a 457(b) or 457(f) plan, the participant will have "basis" on that amount and is not required to pay tax again at the time of distribution. It is the individual’s responsibility to report this on Form 1040 for the year distributed. See IRC 72 for additional guidance on basis. 

Thanks in advance.

Quick question on reporting 457(f) distributions. Say you have a 457(f) plan that vests in a fixed amount (say $500,000) in one year but is paid in installments (say 5 years at $100,000 starting the year after vesting).

Setting aside for the moment the issue of present value, the employer would report all $500,000 as taxable wages on a W-2 in the first year. Later distributions would be subject to tax under section 72, which would require no further taxation upon distribution.

In the installment years, do the $100,000 non-taxable distributions get reported anywhere?

Section 4.72.19.27 of the IRM says the following, but it's not clear what the employer reporting requirements are (if any):

For any amounts previously taxed, but not distributed from a 457(b) or 457(f) plan, the participant will have "basis" on that amount and is not required to pay tax again at the time of distribution. It is the individual’s responsibility to report this on Form 1040 for the year distributed. See IRC 72 for additional guidance on basis. 

Thanks in advance.

Hypothetical planning scenario:  SEP IRA, Simple IRA, and a potential 401(k) plan…?  Lions, tigers, and bears… Oh, my!

A financial advisor who I work with quite a bit called looking for some help.  He indicated that his clients [Drs. Husband & Wife] are trying to maximize their pre-tax retirement savings due to the fact that their combined income is in excess of $1M annually.  The advisor has asked for some informal input.  I disclaimed this one is beyond my scope.  Since he understands not to rely on hypothetical musings, he is still grateful for any input.  We’re trying to jump-start our brains to think this through.  As such, crowd-sourcing this could help us think outside the box.  J  Here are the facts, as we know them:

Husband

• Physician – ER

• Paid as 1099 independent contractor (no employees)

• SEP IRA in place, currently registered under Husabnd’s name (Sole Prop) and maxed to IRS limit annually.

Wife

• Physician - General Surgery

• Owns practice (and has employees)

• Receives W-2 compensation from the practice (so, I am assuming tax entity is a form of corporation or files as one.)

• SIMPLE IRA in place for her & her employees with a 3% elective match.

LLC

• Financial advisor recently became aware that his clients established an LLC (no other employees, likely only the husband & wife);

• The clients’ tax advisor (an EA, not CPA – not that it matters, just more info) is suggesting the husband continues to fund his SEP IRA, BUT through this LLC.  (FYI: Per financial advisor, Husband’s SEP is currently registered under Husband’s name as a Sole Prop.) 

• Further, EA is suggesting Husband pays Wife a salary through the LLC so she may also fund SEP IRA contributions to herself… Again, her practice currently maintains a SIMPLE IRA for the benefit of her employees and herself with a 3% elective match.  This was the EA’s suggestion - NOT currently in practice. >> The advisor is concerned about the EA’s suggestion to do this.  He understands that any comp paid to Husband and/or Wife by LLC is a result of actual services performed for the LLC.  The advisor is committed to making sure everything is on the up and up here.

If the LLC were to sponsor a 401(k) plan (and we assume the LLC will have bona fide earnings/comp to Drs. Husband & Wife), then per this IRS FAQ about SEP plans, I believe Husband might be able to continue his SEP for self-employment income and also contribute as an employee to a 401(k).  However, I believe Wife cannot contribute to her SIMPLE IRA and to a 401(k) in the same year if the two plans’ sponsors are under common control, correct?  Regardless, I am sure there is a whole host of potential nondiscrimination concerns to navigate RE: shared ownership w/ the LLC and her practice.

The big question:  What are the optimal circumstances for his clients in order for both Husband & Wife to save the most advantageous IRS maximum permitted each year?  For this hypothetical, let us assume the clients are willing to make any necessary changes to meet the optimum. 

Plan Document says compensation used only when a participant.  For a calendar year plan, the participant enters plan on 7/1.  They are 3% non-elective safe harbor and profit sharing.  Do you use compensation from 7/1 to 12/31 for both sources to determine contribution? Thank you.