Good morning!  I'm just trying to see if we can setup an additional plan for someone due to it being a controlled group:

1) Employer #1 - Husband owns 100% of the company, his wife is the only employee

2) Employer #2 - Wife owns 100% of company (and is the sole employee)

So the question is, the wife is getting a benefit under her husband's Plan (and a sizable one).  Can she also setup a Plan under her own company or would that not be allowed?

because the participant loan will be used to purchase a principal residence, can you use an adjustable interest rate? Just because the interest rate is to be established at the time of the loan, to me that does not necessarily mean you can't use an adjustable rate because the adjustable rate would be established at the time of the loan. any thoughts? Anyone seen this before? 

Because this participant loan is being used to purchase a principal residence, the repayment will be much longer than the five years. May I use an adjustable rate of interest? Has anyone had any experience with it?

I like to take 401 K

415(h) expands the 1563(a)(1) controlled group set of connected entities. This expansion perforce affects the reckoning of amounts for 415 compliance, both the annual additions and the 415(b)(1)(B) and 415(c)(1)(B) limits. 

The following excerpt serves as verification of this situation. Proceed forward for the inquiry. 

Pursuant to section 414(b) and § 1.414(b)-1, all employees of all corporations that are members of a controlled group of corporations (within the meaning of section 1563(a), as modified by section 1563(f)(5), and determined without regard to section 1563(a)(4) and (e)(3)(C)) are treated as employed by a single employer for purposes of section 415. Similarly, pursuant to section 414(c) and regulations promulgated under section 414(c), all employees of trades or businesses that are under common control are treated as employed by a single employer. Thus, any defined benefit plan or defined contribution plan maintained by any member of a controlled group of corporations (within the meaning of section 414(b)) or by any trade or business (whether or not incorporated) that is part of a group of trades or businesses that are under common control (within the meaning of section 414(c)) is deemed maintained by all such members or such trades or businesses. Pursuant to section 415(h), for purposes of section 415, sections 414(b) and 414(c) are applied by using the phrase “more than 50 percent” instead of the phrase “at least 80 percent” each place the latter phrase appears in section 1563(a)(1) and in the regulations under section 414(c) (except for purposes of determining whether two or more organizations are a brother-sister group of trades or businesses under common control under the rules in § 1.414(c)-2(c)).

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:26 section:415 edition:prelim) OR (granuleid:USC-prelim-title26-section415)&f=treesort&edition=prelim&num=0&jumpTo=true

URL: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-26/part-1/section-1.415(a)-1#p-1.415(a)-1(f)(1) 

Citation: 26 CFR 1.415(a)-1(f)(1)

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b661/5ad7712857a69ffde057d6f233cdc94829ce.pdf

Please indicate if 415(h) affects further amounts for scrutinizing compliance. Perhaps to discourage entities in a controlled group from scrambling or recalibrating ownership to provide more advantageous circumstances for compliance, 415(h) might apply further. 

Employer started 401k plan in 2001 and signed an amendment freezing contributions to the plan in 2008.  Since then all assets have been distributed except for 1 participant and the employer has continued to file Form 5500-SFs.  Employer going through a merger and needs to terminate the plan.  Employer cannot locate the original plan document or any amendments or restatements.  The only document we have is the amendment freezing the plan.  We know the plan must be updated prior to termination, but can we just adopt a Cycle 3 restatement and the requirement amendments since then or do we have to go back to 2008 forward and adopt required interim amendments?  Doesn't the Cycle 3 restatement capture those requirement amendments? Trying to figure out the most cost-effective but compliant method to fix this.  

Last year BCBS Michigan emailed a letter stating they were covering gag Attestation for all fully insured plans.  I have no doubt they are doing it this year as well. However, I can’t find this anywhere on their site (it’s easy to find on many other state BCBS websites). Called employer support and they bounced me around (majority of contacts claimed to have never even heard of Gag Attestation). I googled it to death but can only find Attestation confirmations for other BCBS locations.  Anyone able to steer me towards where in writing they acknowledge they are filing on behalf of fully insured plans again so I can save the document/statement for my records?  It appears every other bcbs state has pushed this information out to their website for easy reference last month.  Thanks in advance! 

For many SECURE 2019 and SECURE 2022 tax law points, recordkeepers set presumptions about which provisions a customer plan sponsor ought to want or is deemed, absent an opt-out, to have instructed the recordkeeper to assume in providing the recordkeeper’s services.

Imagine a recordkeeper chooses to do this about whether a plan provides or omits an Internal Revenue Code § 414A eligible automatic contribution arrangement.

Imagine the recordkeeper practically must set the defaults using only the information the recordkeeper’s computer systems know.

Imagine the system doesn’t know whether the employer “has been in existence for less than 3 years.”

Imagine the system doesn’t know whether the employer “normally employed more than 10 employees.”

If the system doesn’t show that the plan’s § 401(k) arrangement was established before December 29, 2022:

Am I right in guessing a recordkeeper in these circumstance would set a default that an eligible automatic contribution arrangement is on (until the plan sponsor tells the recordkeeper it’s off)?

I've got a 403b plan that tried to move from recordkeeper A to recordkeeper B several years ago.  Despite numerous plan documents saying it is an ERISA plan, RKA is insisting that the accounts they hold are non-ERISA accounts and therefore the plan sponsor can't move the accounts.  The financial advisor did a bunch of presentations showing that RKB has lower fees and this convinced about 90% of the people to move, but there are ~15 who just haven't, for whatever reason.  They are all terminated, and all have $7K+ vested balances.

We're launching a new attempt to reason with RKA, but we are expecting it to fail.  One of the directors asked if they could incentivize the participants to either take a distribution or authorize the transfer to RKB.  $100 cash, say.  Since the financial advisor didn't immediately shoot it down, I said that I'd look into it.

How insane and/or illegal is this idea?  More importantly, are there any other good ideas?

Thanks.

New to the MEP world.  Can you have a SEP plan join a MEP plan as an adopting employer?  I have a financial advisor wanting to have a current SEP plan come over to a MEP plan and I just don't think that is possible in my thought process.  Any language/proof that you can provide that I can provide to the financial advisor would be great.  Thank you.

May a business fund a defined benefit plan with any source of income?  Specifically schedule E income?

Of the Labor department’s, the Treasury department’s, and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation’s rules and regulations published as final on or after January 20, 2021, which of them—even with an effective date before 2025—do not become applicable before January 20, 2025?

(In a convention used by Republican and Democrat Presidents over the past 44 years, a newly inaugurated President’s chief of staff directs executive agency heads to review rules that, even if final and effective, have not yet become applicable.)

Has anyone yet written that list?

If not, can you help us crowdsource which rulemakings won’t be applicable before January 20, 2025?
 

Employer was a governmental entity exempt from ERISA until 7/1/23 when it's structure was changed to a non-governmental, non-profit entity.  The employer has sponsored various welfare and retirement plans for years but we were not filing 5500s due to the governmental status of the employer.  Now that the employer is subject to ERISA we are working on the 2023 Form 5500s (yes - we know they are late😊).  For the 2023 Form 5500s, do we need to indicate a short plan year from 7/1/23 to 12/31/23?  By checking the box for a short plan year are we saying the plans did not come into existence until 7/1/23 or that the plans were not subject to ERISA reporting requirements until 7/1/23?   Any guidance is appreciated! 

I have a client with an ESOP who left their job 5 years ago. They just received the option to take a disbursement, and the disbursement will now be split up over an additional 5 years. Rather than try to interpret the rules myself, I thought I would ask here. Is that allowed? They are under 59 years old, if that is relevant. 

In the past, we have allowed employees to start contributing to our SIMPLE IRA as soon as they (1) completed 12 months of continuous service; (2) earned $5,000 in that 12 month period; and (3) were reasonably expected to earn $5,000 in the next 12 month period. As a result, employees were entering the plan at all dates during the year based on their hire date. I don't think this is correct. It appears that SIMPLE IRAs all have a January 1 entry date and only compensation can be used to determine eligibility.  For example, an employee hired in August 2024 could enter the plan January 1 2025 as long as they earned $5,000 in 2024 and are reasonably expected to earn $5,000 in 2025. Is that correct? Thank you!

I am divorced for 22 years. My QDRO had me paying life long alimony, however my ex recently dropped the alimony as she is living with someone. On the QDRO it has ex named as my death beneficiary. I am remarried for 5 years and would like to change the death beneficiary to my current wife. I belive that the reason ex was named this designation was in the event I should pass away and she would be paid her alimony. 

I would like to modify my QDRO and I was advised that I would need to ask her if she agree's first?? I am perplexed as this is my money...

Should I ask ex first or just have lawyer send her a letter and make it matter of fact of my intent.

Do I have a good change of the judge agreeing to modification. She dropped the alimony and legally my obligation has been satisfied.  She is entitled to a share of my pension in QDRO which I am not disputing, I just want to add my current wife as my death beneficiary. I live in New Jersey.

Kindly advise.

Hi all,

We had a plan merge (transfer) their assets from a 401(k) plan to a 457 plan.  They were not distributions.  The 457 plan does not have a Plan Number so we are receiving an error on the SF about the missing Plan Number when trying to report the transfer under the financial section.  Any suggestions on how to handle?

I'm hoping someone can help set me straight here.

An employer offers two medical plans. Plan 1's self-only coverage is $500/month. Plan 2's self-only coverage is $1,200/month. In order to use the ACA FPL safe harbor, the employer offers a $400/month employer contribution toward either Plan 1 or Plan 2. After the employer contribution, Plan 1's coverage is $100/month and Plan 2's is $800/month. Assume that neither $500/month for Plan 1 nor $800 or $1,200/month for Plan 2 meets any ACA safe harbor (i.e., without the employer contribution, no coverage is affordable). 

The employer's policy is to stop the $400/month employer contribution if an employee is out on unpaid non-protected leave (e.g., not yet FMLA eligible, not ADA, no state law, etc.). The medical insurance policy allows active coverage to continue for up to six months. 

An employee is going out on a three-month non-protected leave during a stability period in which they are full-time. Active coverage will be offered for the full three months.

• If the employee is on Plan 1 and the employer stops the $400/month credit, the employee will not have affordable coverage ($500/month). I assume this will be a problem as the employee still needs access to affordable coverage while in a stability period.
• If the employee is on Plan 2 and the employer stops the $400/month credit, the employee will not have affordable coverage ($1,200/month) but is not enrolled in the "affordable" coverage (Plan 1) to begin with, i.e., it was already not affordable but they had access to an affordable plan during open enrollment. Is this a problem?
• What if the employer only continued the $400/month credit during non-protected leaves for employees who were already enrolled in Plan 1 (but not any other plan)?
• If the employer's plan terms or policies say as much, is it permissible to continue/stop the employer credit only for employees enrolled in certain plans?
• If so, might the cost increase allow them to switch from Plan 2 to Plan 1?

Appreciate any input. 

A U.S. based tax-exempt organization 457(b) plan sponsor wants its new CFO, an Australian citizen who does not have a social security number, to participate in the plan.  I'm only guessing, but I would think that a non-U.S. citizen earning compensation within the U.S. from a U.S. employer would need a social security number unless the individual is exempt from U.S. taxes, most likely pursuant to a tax treaty between the two countries, although I'm no subject matter expert.  If so exempt, then presumably there is no advantage to the CFO participating in the plan (other than perhaps receiving an employer match if the employer decides to make one).

Anyone with other thoughts concerning this situation?  Absent a social security number, I'm not sure our systems will even allow us to establish a plan account for this individual.

Is there a grace period before an employer has to start withholding from an eligible employee's paycheck?  For example, employee is eligible on 1/1/2025.  The employee was given the required notices 30 days prior to 1/1/2025.  If the employee does not make an election to contribute (or not contribute) is the employer required to start withholding from the 1st paycheck after 1/1/2025?  Or can the employer say that they'll start automatically withholding with the first paycheck 30 days after 1/1/2025?