Gilmore

I feel like there is a warning in there. So let's say the Plan Administrator is relying on self-certification and is aware that the participant lives in a declared disaster area where only Public Assistance is available. Are you thinking this would not qualify, or am I misreading your post entirely? Thanks very much.

Got it, thank you.

Thanks RBG. So is the consensus that guidance is needed to confirm if a qualified disaster is only one in which Individual Assistance is offered? What did you end up doing with the participant who lived in the Public Assistance only area? Thank you.

When determining if a disaster qualifies for the SECURE 2.0 disaster relief distributions and loans, is there a "level" of declared relief that determines if a participant can request a SECURE 2.0 disaster related distribution or loan? For example, I am on the FEMA site looking at the Hurrican Milton disaster page for Florida. They provide a map showing the designated areas (attached). On this particular map there are 4 levels of designated areas. The categories listed are Public Assistance (Category B), Public Assistance (Categories A-G), Individual Assistance and Public Assistance (Categories A and B), and Individual Assistance and Public Assistance (Categories A-G). Do all of these categories qualify as a designated area for purposes of requesting a SECURE 2.0 disaster relief distribution or loan? Thank you very much. dec_4834.pdf

Hi Paul, I should have been clearer. What I was referring to is withholding at the time of the distribution. Distributions that are not eligible for rollover (and are subject to mandatory 20% withholding) typically have a 10% withholding default rate that can be waived with a 4W-R form. I was not sure if the 10% default withholding also applied to these disaster relief distributions. Thank you.

Are the Federal Disaster distributions under SECURE 2.0 subject to the 10% withholding that normally applies to retirement plan distributions that are not eligible for rollover? Thank you.

Understood. In this case the inquiry came from the two owners (spouses), with accounts well beyond the dollar allocations. Still a good point. This opens the owners who are also the administrators to having other participants who do not have such large balances making the same type of request.

Thank you Peter. So it sounds like this is a procedural issue and not a statutory issue?

Is it possible to designate a beneficiary with a specific dollar amount? For example, the primary beneficiaries are two children who each get $100,000, then the rest goes to the spouse? Realizing that spousal consent would be required, but I've never seen anything other than percentages used. In the instance for which this is being asked the account balance is well beyond the dollar amount alloted. Thanks very much.

Do we know for certain if the increased catch-up limit for ages 60 through 63 is mandatory if a plan allows catch-up contributions, or is the increased limit optional so the same catch-up limit could continue apply to all catch-up eligible as in pre-2025 if the plan wishes to do so? I've seen what I thought was a reliable source indicate that the change appears mandatory if the plan offers catch-up, but more guidance is required. I've also just received information from a recordkeeper that is indicating the decision to have catch-up and not have the increased limits is optional. Thanks.

Does a $1000 personal emergency distribution help? Never had to repair a septic system, so $1000 may be a drop in the bucket, no pun intended.

The Erisa Outline Book always had a great Compensation Comparison Chart that should all of the pay elements included and excluded from the different compensation definitions. That's always my go to, at least for a starting point.

What are the rules anymore for failing to timely restate? Assume the Monday signing is considered late. Is the plan an individually designed plan for one day?

Just to clarify the original question. Do the loan procedures require spousal consent if the participant's account balance is greater than whatever amount is specified for spousal consent, or is spousal consent required if the loan balance is greater than the spousal consent amount? If the latter, then would a $3,000 loan still require spousal consent if $5,000 is the threshold?

W2 wages from SCorp. Thank you for confirming a correction is required on the W2 comp deferrals.

Hopefully a simple question for a Friday. Owner-only plan. Accountant was taking 401(k) deductions from payroll for the owner. Owner was not depositing the deferrals. Question...do the late deposit rules apply to an owner-only plan? We can certainly work up some lost earnings and prepare a 5330, but is it required in this instance? Thanks very much.

Thank you for the follow up Cuse and Peter. Seems like a non-issue but anytime there is the potential for big penalties it's at least worth discussing.

Peter, that was exactly the reason behind the request from my client. They wanted to combine the SAR with the their year end notices. I believe Belgarath's common sense approach has merit, but have you any knowledge of Cuse's concern regarding filing before the deadline causing the extension to be considered invalid? Or is this such a small issue not worth the worry? Thanks.

We did actually have one client question why we did not file an extension even though they timely filed their 5500 just so they would have the extended notice period. That was a while back and I hadn't thought of that until this question came up. Cuse does bring up an interesting point.

If you are intending to keep the discretionary match under the safe harbor rules, yes. Otherwise I agree with RBG.

Of course check what your specific plan document allows, but in general a non-QACA safe harbor can have non-QACA ACA provisions. As long as you are not changing the safe harbor contribution, or reducing the number of participants eligible to receive safe harbor contributions, you should be able to add ACA provisions mid-year. Keep in mind that unless the ACA will only apply to new entrants to the plan after the plan is amendded, the mid year ACA cannot be an EACA. If not an EACA there can be no 90 day withdrawals in 2024.

In the 5500-SF instructions, "What to File", it says, "Plans required to file an annual return/report that meet all of the conditions for filing the Form 5500-SF may complete and file the Form 5500-SF in accordance with its instructions." There are a lot of "musts" in the instructions, but here they use "may". Is there any reason a small plan filer that is otherwise eligible to file a 5500-SF cannot choose to file a 5500 with Schedule I?

I wonder if divying up the horse when time comes for a distribution is where the term "quarter horse" comes from.

Good to also start a practice of getting an election form back from every new participant, even those electing 0%.

Thank you very much.