austin3515

Are we on the same page that a top-heavy Safe Harbor Match Plan would not amend their eligiblity to make it more generous because even though there is no top-heavy minimum due for people with less than a year, there is for people with more than a year? Smaller Safe Harbor Match plans are generally top-heavy. Why? The reason they are safe harbor match in the first place is because the owners participate and the employees do not. So top-heavy comes at these plans pretty PDQ. This would be a ridiculous oversight making this relief probably 1/3 as impactful as it otherwise might have been. Maybe less.

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/fw4r--2022.pdf OK it's not horrible but it's an extra piece of paper. I suppose maybe they want people to know what their marginal rate is when they make the election? OR will the Empower's and John Hancocks just modify their forms to avoid this?

Transmeroca sent out a piece indicating tha the IRS now requires W4R every time someone wants to increase their withholding. Can that be right?? Those forms are notoriously nonsensical.

Looking forward to confirmation that this will be a real thing and not a teaser!!

Congress intended to allow plan sponsors of small top-heavy plans to allow their hardworking employees to contribute from their date of hire. If the IRS does not bear this in mind when analyzing this language it would be most unfortunate working Americans. To me if you are exempt from (A) and (B) you have met the requirements. If there is any doubt about this the IRS needs to tell us ASAP since these LTP rules are effective 1/1/2024. Just so everyone understands the implication of CB Zeller's conclusion, this new rule is practically worthless for safe harbor MATCH plans trying to avail themselves of the exemption: That's because if you have immediate eligibility for 401k and a 1 year wait for the match, now anyone with more than a year has to get the 3% top-heavy minimum. No one in their right mind would do this. IF they would they would just have the 3% nonelective. Not a single solitary top-heavy safe harbor match plan will amend to liberalize 401k eligibility if relief does not apply. Not sure what the point was.

Excellent, very excellent. That sounds good enough to me! The sole impediment to immediate eligibility will be the audit now!

Well maybe this new rule will cover it. Honestly if it doesn't cover the Safe Harbor match top-heavy plans that is just too bad.

Awersome article from Groom Law. But in a sea of bad news, this almost makes it worthwhile... I haven;t seen yet if they fixed the issue where a top-heavy safe harbor match plan can avail themselves of immediate eligiblity and a 1 year wait to avoid blowing their top-heavy exemption. That would for sure be a disappointing exclusion but regardless this is pretty awesome for a lot of plans. https://www.groom.com/resources/secure-2-0-hitches-a-ride-just-in-the-st-nick-of-time/

Amen Peter. Sometimes the disconnection with the world is unbelievable. Such a good example of that. Another is when they think it's feasible to have additional catch-up contributions at age 60, 61, 62 and 63. And login.gov were the links that I deleted (at least that is the text I didn't exam the link).

Client got this email and wanted to know if it was legit. Have others seen this? You get an email from some account with hyperlinks and obvioulsy people are concerned it is a phishing campaign (ALL links were deleted before I pasted this in). Curious to know if anyone else has heard of these going out. This will ruin 2023 for us unfortunately. IT was awful the first time. The 2nd time should be no different. The email is as follows: EBSA is modernizing the EFAST2 website authentication process. The existing EFAST2-issued User ID and password log-in process is being phased out and will be replaced by the unified single sign-on solution for U.S. government websites. enables users to securely log in to many government agencies’ services with a single username and password. Beginning Jan. 1, 2023, all new EFAST2 website accounts will be created using the process. Existing filers may use their EFAST2-issued User ID and password to log in to the EFAST2 website until Sept. 1, 2023. This eight-month grace period provides a gradual transition for filers. However, existing filers may change to a account as early as Jan. 1, 2023. Logging into the EFAST2 website is required to obtain new electronic signature credentials for the Form 5500 Series. It is also required to file the Form PR or to use IFILE, the government’s Form 5500 Series filing application. Logging into the EFAST2 website is generally not necessary for existing Form 5500 Series filers using Thank you, The U.S. Department of Labor

we're going to try to route of sending the letter wioth the documentation as RBG suggested. We have always done that in the past where needed and its been fine.

Wow, our tax dollars hard at work. And they don't know what we have to go through to resolve these things. Thank you very much for the tip on the power of attorney.

We sent in extensions for both 2/28 and 3/31 and so far at least one in each batch was rejected even though we are 100% certain we mailed them in at least a few days before the due date. Anyone having the same issue?

Here is what my document says in case anyone is googling this post: The reference to 401a4 to means the orphan match issue...

The more I think about it, the email seems like a courtesy. I wonder how many of those emails that are sent relate to the sponsr at Bundled Provider, Inc. who just submitted without realizing the pdf needed to be attached. I'll bet it;s a fair amount. And then there are those that were legitimately late, but now that the audit is finished, the amended was never done. That's also common. We have definitely followed up with the auditors and gotten the response "oh we finished that 6 weeks ago!"

FYI, we received our first correspondence from the DOL on a missing audit report. It was just a nice email from your very friendly DOL Chief Accountant that the filing excluded the audit report. So no $18,000 penalty from the IRS, so that was nice to see. An auditor friend of mine received a similar correspondence so it seems as though they have replaced their draconian whack you over the head approach with a more practical position.

Correct but not use the VFCP. 99% of these are deposits that are 3 days late with $30 of interest.

If all deposits that are funded within 180 days of being due are covered, regardless of when we do the lost interest calc/funding it certainly goes a long way to alleviating my concerns. This whole notion of reporting it to the DOL is still a deal-breaker because I just don;t trust them not to use it for additional communications, etc. What's the point of requiring the reporting if they are not going to use it somehow?

Oh well that's something! Good thing I haven't sent in any comments yet!

I'd have to put my name on it and I don't if I can bury the contempt 🤣🤣🤣

Oh and the 180 day turn around time is worthless because these are identified by the auditors in almost all cases well after the close of that date. There is just not any volume on these corrections outside of the audit. If there is a a 5 person payroll that is a week late, no one is sending their client to the DOL website to do a filing, it's just insanity. This is really ridiculous.

https://www.sidley.com/en/insights/newsupdates/2022/11/us-dol-proposes-self-correction-of-delinquent-contributions-and-loan-payments Can someone pleas call the DOL and explain to them what "self-correction" means? The sponsor would submit an electronic notice form on the EBSA website, after which the self-corrector would automatically receive an emailed acknowledgment. The sponsor must complete a retention record checklist, including signing a penalty of perjury statement, preparing or collecting certain documents, and providing the checklist and required documentation to the plan administrator.

Curious to see if people are seeing the same thing as me with TIAA CREF. I swear they are doing loan reporting for participant loans (NOT Plan Loans--if you work with TIAA you know there is a distinction) the wrong way. As far as I can tell this is what they are doing: 1) Including deemed distributed loans in the ending balance of participant loans 2) Reporting loan offsets as deemed distributions. Loan offsets of course should be included in the regular distribution item. I hope I'm wrong, but honest to goodness I'm pretty certain they are messing it up. And you would never know it unless you really dig (I did not because I had faith in TIAA, but the auditor is digging, and by golly I think they are correct).

A worldwife pandemic! Everyone got married, it was a disaster! Don't tell my wife I said this please!

Well the good news (presumably) is that by the time they get to auditing the amendments in 2027 or so, all of this will be so old that no one will check :). Now, we kept meticulous notes of who did what and I am hellbent on getting these done next summer. But I will just point out I don;t see a lot risk here that the IRS is going to rake people over the coals about how accurate a 7 year old change was in the midst of a worldwife pandemic. Just a hunch!