Gilmore

I wouldn't be too hard on yourself. I just read the ASPPA update that a technical error has now eliminated all catchups effective for January 2024.

Nice. Funny, I was just rereading that section to update my chart and made a note that it did seem that the pre-2023 service would count in a 401(k). Appreciate the update and also sending the question for the upcoming ERISApedia session. I've signed up for that one as well. Thanks very much.

Sure thing. I posted it more for the structure than the content.

I am not an attorney, just a lowly TPA, but when I started reviewing the ACT, I thought I would create a spreadsheet that I could sort by the code section, effective date, etc. This was just my first run through and obviously needs to be updated, but please feel free to take it and make it your own. Secure 2.0 Provisions.xlsx

Yes, thanks for clarifying the excluded service.

I'm assuming this also means that an ee with 500 hours in 2021 and 2022, but not 2023 or 2024 would be eligible as a LTPT on 1/1/2025?

No problem. I was definitely being cynical.

I'm assuming with all of the new inservice distribution options that retirement plan "leakage" isn't a concern anymore?

I guess you get a boost in the deferral max for a few years leading up to the traditional 65 retirement age.

Yes, that would be nice. The hope of going to electronic filing feels like an excuse for not fixing the immediate problem.

Yup, we've done that when we've had a whole bunch in a package get rejected. For this one-off I'd like to call and get confirmation myself.

On 10/18 we sent two extensions. One for a 3/31 plan year end and one for a 4/30 year end. Normally we would have waited on the 4/30 year end but because we have been having 5558's rejected we sent earlier than usual. Our certified mailing return receipt (old school green receipt) was stamped as received 11/4/2022 by Ogden, UT. The 4/30 plan year end with the 11/30 filing deadline received a denial letter. The one that was "late" with the 10/31 filing deadline so far has not received a letter. So just like M says, we got our 2848 and are setting aside a morning to wait in queue. This has been an ongoing issue for the past several plan years. How are others dealing with this? I've heard some that send 5558s a month after plan year end just to have it on file. That sounds like compounding the problem with all of the unnecessary forms going in to be processed, but we are seriously giving it some thought for 2022 plans.

An employee is out on some sort of unpaid leave. No compensation, but not "officially" terminated. I would agree that they are not part of testing. Assume no balance in the plan. Would you include or not include in the 5500 counts if they have otherwise met the plan's eligibility requirements?

Thank you very much Lou. That was more optimistic than I had hoped.

Calendar year 401(k) plan provides for a 3% safe harbor nonelective. Employer wants to change to safe harbor match for 1/1/2023. Discussions started weeks ago, but employer got side tracked with personnel changes, including board members who were supposed to be making this decision. They still want to make the change, but now that we are passed the safe harbor notice period what is the risk if they proceed with amending the plan and giving out the notice of the safe harbor match say, next week. The RK supposedly already sent the 3% notice, although that has not been confirmed.

Of course if it is FT you can always call them and get their advice; probably the safer course of action.

Are you using the FT William system? I see ftwilliam.com in the date and time. Is there a downside to loading preliminary census data into the existing plan and running an ADP test? If it is FT you can modify the plan provisions then just switch them back after you get all your reports.

That's interesting Lou. The EOB says the IRS has agreed with the first option, which is she would not be a Key Employee for purposes of the 2021 top heavy minimum, but says that the second option is the one that most aligns with the Code, which is your take as well.

How would you determine the 2021 top heavy minimum in the following scenario. The 2021 plan year is top heavy as determined by the 12/31/2020 account balances. Let's assume that Mary was not an Officer in 2020, and so was not a Key Employee for purposes of the 12/31/2020 determination. Let's assume too that the plan provides that only non-Key EEs receive a top heavy minimum. For the 2021 top heavy minimum is Mary considered to be a Key Employee or a non-Key Employee? I've seen this discussed in the EOB (Key Employee Definition), that there are two opinions. One says that even though she is clearly a Key Employee for the 12/31/2021 determination (for 2022 top heavy status), because she was not a Key Employee for the 12/30/2020 determination (for 2021 top heavy status), she is considered to be a non-Key for the 2021 top heavy minimum. The other opinion says that she is a Key Employee in 2021 for all purposes, including if she gets a 2021 top heavy minimum, which under this scenario she would not. Is this EOB information still relevant, and any one care to share their view?

BTW, I'm not saying that is right or wrong, it just makes sense to us not to compete with the 404a5 disclosure.

Nice question. I'm interested in hearing others opinions. I will confess, for us we stopped trying to include fees in SPD a few years ago when I noticed that every SPD that we saw in a takeover situation did not mention fees specifically. We use FTW and go with the default language that describes the types of fees that might be charged an refers them to the Plan Administrator for more information.

We had a somewhat similar situation in which a client's payroll company rep told him he was paying outrageous fees for his 401(k) plan and pointed to line 8h on his SF form. Needless to say the majority of that number was due to employee distributions, which the rep forgot to mention. We are a tiny little firm and have great clients that, like this one, would reach out to us before reacting, but it made me wonder how easy it would be to lose a client due to something like this and never know why. So I would say this is not hilarious.

If the participant's balance can support the combined amount of the new loan created by the refinance, plus the balance of the loan being refinanced, you can start a new 5 year term for the new loan. Here is a good article: http://employeebenefitplanaudit.belfint.com/participant-loan-refinancing/

Unless it's a deemed default. $5k for some purposes and still $10k for other purposes. I hate deemed defaults.

On erisapedia.com/webcasts/ there is a recorded webcast called, "Pass the Catch-Up". I believe it is free for anyone to watch. Derrin Watson goes through a really detailed example of an off-calendar plan year dealing with 402(g), 401(a)(30), catch-up, ADP refunds... If I remember, that example is towards the end of the presentation if you wanted to skip through.